MA7-08666

MA7-08666

The claimants failed to discharge the burden to demonstrate that relocation within Haiti would be unreasonable or that they faced individualized persecution; the risks they described were generalized and an internal flight alternative existed, therefore they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA7-08666
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97(1) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants not recognized as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor as persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Burden of Proof, Generalized Risk, Persecution, Political Activities, Family Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Burden of Proof +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97(1) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants established that internal flight alternative is unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to discharge the burden to demonstrate that relocation within Haiti would be unreasonable or that they faced individualized persecution; the risks they described were generalized and an internal flight alternative existed, therefore they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants not recognized as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor as persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA