VB0-02157

VB0-02157

Although the claimant was found credible and suffered severe criminal violence including sexual assault, the evidence shows he was a victim of generalized gang criminality without a nexus to a Convention ground and without a personalized risk; sexual orientation was not established; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
VB0-02157
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (oral 05 April 2011; Written Reasons 12 April 2011)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk, Sexual Orientation, Gang Violence, Extortion, Sexual Assault, Credibility, Delay in Making Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk Sexual Orientation 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (oral 05 April 2011; Written Reasons 12 April 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk faced is personalized or generalized

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant was found credible and suffered severe criminal violence including sexual assault, the evidence shows he was a victim of generalized gang criminality without a nexus to a Convention ground and without a personalized risk; sexual orientation was not established; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed