TA8-17802

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because Guyana is a functioning democracy with police resources and oversight mechanisms and the evidence showed generalized criminality rather than a targeted risk; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation: TA8-17802
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 6 September 2010
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.97) / Hearing Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome: Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics: State Protection, Generalized Risk, Convention Refugee, Victim of Criminality
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Generalized Risk Convention Refugee Victim of Criminality

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.97) / Hearing Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimants meet the definition of Convention refugee under IRPA
2 Whether state protection in Guyana was available or effective
3 Whether the risk faced by the claimants was individualized or generalized

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.