TB7-04239

TB7-04239

The claim is dismissed because the alleged threats are criminal in nature without proven nexus to a Convention ground, the claimant failed to establish the requisite subjective fear given egregious delay and failure to seek protection in Spain and her return to Guatemala, and overall credibility deficiencies mean documentary evidence cannot by itself establish a well‑founded fear; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-04239
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Board Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection; claim dismissed under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1) Irpa), Credibility and Subjective Fear, Gender Related Persecution, Delay and Failure to Seek Protection Abroad, Nexus to Convention Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa) Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1) Irpa) Credibility and Subjective Fear Gender Related Persecution Delay and Failure to Seek Protection Abroad +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Board Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between feared harm and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the alleged threats are criminal in nature without proven nexus to a Convention ground, the claimant failed to establish the requisite subjective fear given egregious delay and failure to seek protection in Spain and her return to Guatemala, and overall credibility deficiencies mean documentary evidence cannot by itself establish a well‑founded fear; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection; claim dismissed under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act