TB1-10013

TB1-10013

Because the claimant was targeted as part of generalized extortion by FARC without evidence linking that targeting to a Convention ground, and because he failed to show a personalized risk or to rebut the presumption of effective state protection with clear and convincing evidence, he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-10013
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and RPD Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Extortion, Guerrilla/armed Group Violence, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Particular Social Group, Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk, Change in Country Conditions, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Extortion Guerrilla/armed Group Violence State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Particular Social Group +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's targeting by FARC establishes nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant belongs to a particular social group
  3. 3 Whether the risk faced is generalized or personalized under s.97

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant was targeted as part of generalized extortion by FARC without evidence linking that targeting to a Convention ground, and because he failed to show a personalized risk or to rebut the presumption of effective state protection with clear and convincing evidence, he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim