TB0-09511

The Tribunal found the claimant's risk arises from generalized gang activity excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii) and that the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation: TB0-09511
Parties: Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 7 November 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (s.97(1)) / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome: Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics: Generalized Risk, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Burden of Proof, Identity/credibility
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law (context) Generalized Risk State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Burden of Proof +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (s.97(1)) / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee
2 Whether the risk is a generalized criminal risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii) IRPA
3 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA