TA6-01055

TA6-01055

The attack was not established as racially motivated and the claimant's fear is a generalized risk faced by many Guyanese rather than an individualized, ethnicity‑based persecution; state protection is available and the claim falls within the exception in section 97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA, therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-01055
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Claim / Decision After De Novo Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, State Protection, Generalized Risk, Credibility, Persecution, Section 97(1)(b)(ii) Exception
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Racial Discrimination State Protection Generalized Risk Credibility +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Claim / Decision After De Novo Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was targeted because of ethnicity such that racial discrimination amounted to persecution
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available in Guyana
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's fear is credible and has nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The attack was not established as racially motivated and the claimant's fear is a generalized risk faced by many Guyanese rather than an individualized, ethnicity‑based persecution; state protection is available and the claim falls within the exception in section 97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA, therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee
  • Claimant is not a person in need of protection