MA9-05426

MA9-05426

The claim was rejected because the panel found the harm resulted from indiscriminate criminal activity and a private property dispute rather than persecution for a Convention ground, the claimant did not establish that state protection was unavailable or ineffective for his circumstances and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore he failed to discharge the burden of proof under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA9-05426
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant not recognized as a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Non State Actors and Organized Crime, Credibility, Kidnapping, Extortion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law (context) Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Non State Actors and Organized Crime +3 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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant meets definition of Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found the harm resulted from indiscriminate criminal activity and a private property dispute rather than persecution for a Convention ground, the claimant did not establish that state protection was unavailable or ineffective for his circumstances and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore he failed to discharge the burden of proof under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant not recognized as a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected