MA7-01146

MA7-01146

The panel rejected the refugee claims because the principal claimant's factual allegations were found not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies with his PIF and supporting documents, and because the risk of kidnapping and violence in Haiti was determined to be generalized and not personalized to the claimants, thus falling within the exception of subparagraph 97(1)(b)(ii) and not engaging protection obligations; the daughter’s claim was rejected for lack of evidence against the United States.

Citation
MA7-01146
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (son): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (daughter, United States Citizen): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Claim Rejected)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Imputed Political Opinion, Particular Social Group (family), Generalized Risk (kidnapping), Credibility Findings, Protection Elsewhere
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Refugee Protection Imputed Political Opinion Particular Social Group (family) Generalized Risk (kidnapping) Credibility Findings Protection Elsewhere

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child (son)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child (daughter, United States Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Claim Rejected)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant was persecuted or at risk because of imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Whether the family constitutes a particular social group giving rise to refugee protection
  3. 3 Whether the alleged risk of kidnapping/violence is personalized or generalized under s.97(1)(b) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee claims because the principal claimant's factual allegations were found not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies with his PIF and supporting documents, and because the risk of kidnapping and violence in Haiti was determined to be generalized and not personalized to the claimants, thus falling within the exception of subparagraph 97(1)(b)(ii) and not engaging protection obligations; the daughter’s claim was rejected for lack of evidence against the United States.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, spouse and son are rejected.
  • Refugee protection claim of the daughter (United States citizen) is rejected for lack of evidence against the United States.