TA6-04500

TA6-04500

The claimants were rejected because the evidence showed no individualized risk: they lacked a significant political profile, had procured passports and travelled freely, provided no persuasive evidence of past persecution, did not seek asylum in the United States despite opportunity (undermining subjective fear), and thus only faced generalized risk in Zimbabwe which does not amount to persecution or meet s.97 protection thresholds.

Citation
TA6-04500
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX); Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX); Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persecution, Political Opinion, Credibility, Asylum Shopping, Failure to Seek Protection, Visa Status, Risk of Torture, Generalized Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Persecution Political Opinion Credibility Asylum Shopping +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants fear persecution for political opinion
  3. 3 Whether past activities and membership create a profile attracting state persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were rejected because the evidence showed no individualized risk: they lacked a significant political profile, had procured passports and travelled freely, provided no persuasive evidence of past persecution, did not seek asylum in the United States despite opportunity (undermining subjective fear), and thus only faced generalized risk in Zimbabwe which does not amount to persecution or meet s.97 protection thresholds.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX; they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.