VB0-01007

VB0-01007

Although claimant was found generally credible, the danger she faced from Mara gang activity was a generalized risk common to many in Guatemala and lacked nexus to a Convention ground; consequently she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
VB0-01007
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision (oral March 21, 2011; Written March 28, 2011)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Generalized Risk, Nexus, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Gang Violence, Credibility
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Generalized Risk Nexus Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Gang Violence +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision (oral March 21, 2011; Written March 28, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's fear arises from generalized gang violence or a persecution linked to a Convention ground (nexus)
  2. 2 Whether alleged harm amounts to risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under s.97(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether torture or state acquiescence under s.97(1)(a) was established

Ratio Decidendi

Although claimant was found generally credible, the danger she faced from Mara gang activity was a generalized risk common to many in Guatemala and lacked nexus to a Convention ground; consequently she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected; no protection granted