MB0-05477

MB0-05477

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof: his subjective fear was undermined by credibility issues (inconsistent statements, failure to seek protection or pursue police complaint) and the harm alleged is a result of generalized criminality by the Maras rather than targeted persecution by state actors, so he does not meet the tests under section 96 or paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA nor the CAT definition.

Citation
MB0-05477
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Generalized Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Against Torture, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces persecution by state or non-state actors (Maras)

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof: his subjective fear was undermined by credibility issues (inconsistent statements, failure to seek protection or pursue police complaint) and the harm alleged is a result of generalized criminality by the Maras rather than targeted persecution by state actors, so he does not meet the tests under section 96 or paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA nor the CAT definition.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 or a person in need of protection under paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.