MB2-01050

MB2-01050

Female principal claimant's testimony was credible and, on a balance of probabilities, established a real risk to her life and absence of effective state protection in Guatemala and that internal relocation would be unreasonable; by contrast, the male claimant failed to establish a personalized risk or absence of state protection and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed; minors did not demonstrate serious possibility of persecution, therefore only the female claimant qualifies as a person in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
MB2-01050
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/co Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claim of the female principal claimant (XXXX XXXX XXXX) allowed as a person in need of protection; claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (spouse) and the two minor claimants rejected.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Benefit of the Doubt, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Benefit of the Doubt +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/co Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants established identity and credibility
  2. 2 Whether each claimant faces a personalized risk of persecution or serious harm on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available or effective

Ratio Decidendi

Female principal claimant's testimony was credible and, on a balance of probabilities, established a real risk to her life and absence of effective state protection in Guatemala and that internal relocation would be unreasonable; by contrast, the male claimant failed to establish a personalized risk or absence of state protection and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed; minors did not demonstrate serious possibility of persecution, therefore only the female claimant qualifies as a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim of the female principal claimant (XXXX XXXX XXXX) allowed as a person in need of protection; claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (spouse) and the two minor claimants rejected.

Orders

  • Female claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX granted protection as a person in need of protection under section 97
  • Claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX rejected