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.
Parties
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX
Claimant
Minister (Canada)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 state protection
- 2 nexus to Convention ground (membership in a particular social group)
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment