VA9-05882

VA9-05882

The claim fails because the claimant's fear arises from criminality and extortion not connected to a Convention ground, and he failed to rebut the presumption that Moldova could provide state protection with clear and convincing evidence (he did not pursue police or federation remedies and the evidence of police collusion was speculative). Therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97.

Citation
VA9-05882
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Nexus, Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Corruption, Extortion, Match Fixing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Nexus Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear of Persecution Corruption +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97
  3. 3 Whether persecution by criminals constitutes nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the claimant's fear arises from criminality and extortion not connected to a Convention ground, and he failed to rebut the presumption that Moldova could provide state protection with clear and convincing evidence (he did not pursue police or federation remedies and the evidence of police collusion was speculative). Therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Reasons for decision dated 21 October 2011