TA8-12462

TA8-12462

The panel dismissed the claim because it did not accept key factual allegations as credible, found no nexus to Convention grounds given the criminal nature of the AUC conduct, determined a viable internal flight alternative existed in Bogota, and concluded any risk was generalized and excluded under s.97(1)(b).

Citation
TA8-12462
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (disjoined): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Credibility, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk (s.97(1)(b)), State Protection, Failure to Seek Protection in Transit Countries, Demobilization of Paramilitaries, Gang Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Extortion Credibility Nexus to Convention Grounds Internal Flight Alternative Generalized Risk (s.97(1)(b)) +4 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (disjoined)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's evidence and genuineness of fear

Ratio Decidendi

The panel dismissed the claim because it did not accept key factual allegations as credible, found no nexus to Convention grounds given the criminal nature of the AUC conduct, determined a viable internal flight alternative existed in Bogota, and concluded any risk was generalized and excluded under s.97(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim dismissed
  • Co-claimant (common-law wife) disjoined and negative bench decision rendered due to U.S. citizenship