2019 RLLR 61

2019 RLLR 61

On the balance of probabilities the tribunal accepted the claimants' identities and credibility, found an individualized risk from MS‑13 extortion and threats that exceeded generalized country risk, concluded state protection was unavailable and no internal flight alternative existed, and therefore held the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
2019 RLLR 61
Parties
Principal Claimant: [XXX]; Minor Claimant: [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing Decision / Merits Determination
Outcome
Claims allowed; claimants found to be persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Generalized Risk Exception, Gang Violence / Extortion, Section 96 Vs Section 97 Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Generalized Risk Exception +2 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Principal Claimant

[XXX]

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing Decision / Merits Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' fear is individualized versus generalized
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of state protection is rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the tribunal accepted the claimants' identities and credibility, found an individualized risk from MS‑13 extortion and threats that exceeded generalized country risk, concluded state protection was unavailable and no internal flight alternative existed, and therefore held the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims allowed; claimants found to be persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claimants' protection claims accepted; claimants found to be persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1) IRPA