TC2-02721

TC2-02721

The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant did not face a risk that was personal and distinct from the generalized extortion risk in Colombia; she was not directly targeted or contacted and the risk is the same as that faced generally, so she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b).

Citation
TC2-02721
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Generalized Risk, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Section 97(1)(b) IRPA, Nexus, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Generalized Risk Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Section 97(1)(b) IRPA Nexus +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant faces a personalized forward-looking risk under s.97(1)(b) of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the risk to the appellant is different in nature and degree from the generalized risk faced by others in Colombia
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus to the Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant did not face a risk that was personal and distinct from the generalized extortion risk in Colombia; she was not directly targeted or contacted and the risk is the same as that faced generally, so she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Act and confirmation of the RPD decision