TA7-03637

TA7-03637

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, an individualized risk of persecution or a real chance of torture/cruel and unusual treatment: documentary evidence showed generalized violence but not that the claimant, by reason of her familial/imputed political opinion, would be targeted; psychological evidence did not change that conclusion.

Citation
TA7-03637
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Risk of Persecution, Non‑refoulement, Torture, Credibility, Imputed Political Opinion, Gender‑based Violence, Psychological Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Asylum Convention Refugee Risk of Persecution Non‑refoulement Torture +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's familial/imputed political opinion makes her a target

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, an individualized risk of persecution or a real chance of torture/cruel and unusual treatment: documentary evidence showed generalized violence but not that the claimant, by reason of her familial/imputed political opinion, would be targeted; psychological evidence did not change that conclusion.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.