TB1-18343

TB1-18343

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground (evidence points to criminality/extortion not political persecution), failed to rebut the presumption that Bangladesh can provide state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and the risk alleged is generalized rather than a specific risk under s.97(1), so no protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA is warranted.

Citation
TB1-18343
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (s.96 and S.97(1)) / Final Decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Section 97(1) Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Section 97(1) Risk

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (s.96 and S.97(1)) / Final Decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has nexus to a Convention ground (political opinion/membership of particular social group)
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Bangladesh is adequate
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a personalized risk under s.97(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground (evidence points to criminality/extortion not political persecution), failed to rebut the presumption that Bangladesh can provide state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and the risk alleged is generalized rather than a specific risk under s.97(1), so no protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA is warranted.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act