VA9-04699

VA9-04699

Claimants fail because the harm they suffered was ordinary criminal extortion and violence for financial gain without nexus to a Convention ground; the female claimant had a viable internal flight alternative (La Union) and relocation would not be unreasonable; there is no individualized substantial risk to engage s.97 or risk of torture.

Citation
VA9-04699
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under the IRPA; removal would not expose them to death, cruel and unusual treatment, or torture.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gang Violence, Extortion, Nexus, Credibility, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Human Rights Criminal Violence Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gang Violence +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the conduct complained of is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants fail because the harm they suffered was ordinary criminal extortion and violence for financial gain without nexus to a Convention ground; the female claimant had a viable internal flight alternative (La Union) and relocation would not be unreasonable; there is no individualized substantial risk to engage s.97 or risk of torture.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under the IRPA; removal would not expose them to death, cruel and unusual treatment, or torture.