2023 RLLR 42

2023 RLLR 42

The panel found that the claimants established, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized risk to their lives or risk of cruel and unusual treatment from the CJNG; the presumption of state protection was rebutted due to endemic police corruption and cartel reach; no reasonable internal flight alternative existed; therefore the claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
2023 RLLR 42
Parties
Principal Claimant (designated Representative for Daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Son Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter Claimant (represented by Principal Claimant): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Decision (rpd)
Outcome
Claimants found to be persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Section 96 IRPA, Subsection 97(1) IRPA, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus, Credibility, Extortion, Cartel Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law (organized Crime) Section 96 IRPA Subsection 97(1) IRPA State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant (designated Representative for Daughter)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Daughter Claimant (represented by Principal Claimant)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to Convention refugee grounds
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the claimants established, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized risk to their lives or risk of cruel and unusual treatment from the CJNG; the presumption of state protection was rebutted due to endemic police corruption and cartel reach; no reasonable internal flight alternative existed; therefore the claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claimants found to be persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claimants granted protection as persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.