TA4-16560

TA4-16560

The claim was rejected because the evidence did not demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution; alleged dangers were generalized or speculative rather than persecution, so the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TA4-16560
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent/claimant: Tinika Mayers; Refugee Protection Officer: R. Henderson; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (oral Decision July 14, 2005; Written Reasons September 21, 2005)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Well‑founded Fear of Persecution, Humanitarian and Compassionate Application, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations Child Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Well‑founded Fear of Persecution Humanitarian and Compassionate Application +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Tinika Mayers

Dependent/claimant

R. Henderson

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (oral Decision July 14, 2005; Written Reasons September 21, 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the child is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the evidence establishes a well‑founded fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the evidence did not demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution; alleged dangers were generalized or speculative rather than persecution, so the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection within the meaning of ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA
  • Panel recommended that the claimant pursue a humanitarian and compassionate application