MA7-01717

MA7-01717

The claim was rejected because the alleged threats and extortion were criminal in nature without nexus to a Convention ground, there was no implicating involvement or failure by state agents, and the risk identified is generalized criminality rather than persecution on a protected ground.

Citation
MA7-01717
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Generalized Risk, State Protection, Particular Social Group, Political Opinion, Harassment, Kidnapping
Source Language
English

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between feared harm and one of the five Convention grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the alleged threats and extortion were criminal in nature without nexus to a Convention ground, there was no implicating involvement or failure by state agents, and the risk identified is generalized criminality rather than persecution on a protected ground.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.