MB5-05577

MB5-05577

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant's credibility undermined by a significant omission in his BOC, and the risk he faces from the Maras is a generalized, non-Convention-ground-based criminal risk to the population of El Salvador, therefore failing to establish persecution under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA; Article 1E did not apply to bar consideration of the claim.

Citation
MB5-05577
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Citizenship and Immigration Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Convention Nexus, Generalized Risk, Temporary Protected Status (tps), Article 1 E Exclusion
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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Citizenship and Immigration Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies for refugee protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant's evidence is credible given omissions in the Basis of Claim form
  3. 3 Whether the harm feared is connected to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant's credibility undermined by a significant omission in his BOC, and the risk he faces from the Maras is a generalized, non-Convention-ground-based criminal risk to the population of El Salvador, therefore failing to establish persecution under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA; Article 1E did not apply to bar consideration of the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim rejected