TC1-02287

TC1-02287

Appeal dismissed because appellants failed to establish a prospective personal risk under s.97(1)(b): the risk was tied to a changeable circumstance (store ownership) which appellants had ceased, and there was insufficient evidence that the criminal perpetrators had both the means and motivation to locate and harm the appellants; state protection issues were not determinative once risk under s.97(1)(b) was not established.

Citation
TC1-02287
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Personalized Risk, Credibility Assessment, Section 97(1)(b) IRPA, Extortion by Criminal Groups
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law State Protection Personalized Risk Credibility Assessment Section 97(1)(b) IRPA Extortion by Criminal Groups

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a personal risk under section 97(1)(b) of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the risk is individualized or shared with a similarly situated group
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because appellants failed to establish a prospective personal risk under s.97(1)(b): the risk was tied to a changeable circumstance (store ownership) which appellants had ceased, and there was insufficient evidence that the criminal perpetrators had both the means and motivation to locate and harm the appellants; state protection issues were not determinative once risk under s.97(1)(b) was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and RPD decision confirmed