VA9-01616

VA9-01616

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; there is no nexus to a Convention ground as the persecution alleged is criminal in nature rather than on account of a protected ground; and credibility concerns (omissions/misrepresentations and lack of corroboration) prevent acceptance of the core allegations.

Citation
VA9-01616
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Final Decision
Outcome
claim rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Nexus to Convention Ground, Misrepresentation, Gang Violence, Extortion, Abduction
Source Language
English

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Final Decision

  1. 1 state protection
  2. 2 nexus to Convention ground (membership in a particular social group)
  3. 3 credibility and failure to disclose

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; there is no nexus to a Convention ground as the persecution alleged is criminal in nature rather than on account of a protected ground; and credibility concerns (omissions/misrepresentations and lack of corroboration) prevent acceptance of the core allegations.

Court Disposition

claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; claim rejected under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.