MB0-05794

MB0-05794

The panel found the claimant faced generalized extortion and violence rather than persecution tied to a Convention ground; state authorities were involved and an investigation was open, the claimant failed to seek protection in the United States or pursue higher echelons or relocation, and these factors together (plus credibility concerns about not claiming earlier protection) justified refusing recognition as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB0-05794
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse / Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Refusal Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants not recognized as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Generalized Violence, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Public International Law Extortion Generalized Violence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse / Designated Representative

XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Refusal Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faced persecution linked to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the harm alleged constituted generalized violence or individualized persecution
  3. 3 Whether the state could provide protection or the claimant could internally relocate

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant faced generalized extortion and violence rather than persecution tied to a Convention ground; state authorities were involved and an investigation was open, the claimant failed to seek protection in the United States or pursue higher echelons or relocation, and these factors together (plus credibility concerns about not claiming earlier protection) justified refusing recognition as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants not recognized as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.