MA6-01394
The claimant failed to prove a particularized risk as required by s.97(1)(b)(ii) because the evidence established the threat from gangs was a generalized, countrywide risk; therefore the claim for refugee protection is rejected.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MA6-01394
- Parties
- Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Decision (hearing Aug 23, 2006; Decision Aug 29, 2006)
- Outcome
- Claim for refugee protection rejected
- Legal Topics
- Protection Under S.97(1)(b) of IRPA, Generalized Risk Vs. Particularized Risk, Gang Violence (mara Salvatrucha), Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Claimant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Decision (hearing Aug 23, 2006; Decision Aug 29, 2006)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant faces a personal risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the risk alleged is particular to the claimant or is a generalized risk faced by the population of El Salvador
- 3 Whether threats from gangs (Mara Salvatrucha) amount to a risk that is not faced generally by other individuals from that country
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant failed to prove a particularized risk as required by s.97(1)(b)(ii) because the evidence established the threat from gangs was a generalized, countrywide risk; therefore the claim for refugee protection is rejected.
Court Disposition
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Orders
- Claim for refugee protection rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division RPD file No. / No. de dossier de la SPR : MA6-01394 Private Proceeding Huis clos Claimants Demandeur(e)s d'asile XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Date(s) of Hearing Date(s) de l'audience August 23, 2006 Place of hearing Lieu de l'audience Montreal, Quebec Date of Decision Date de la décision August 29, 2006 Panel Tribunal Me Donal Archambault Claimant's Counsel Conseil du demandeur d'asile Me Manuel Antonio Centurion Refugee Protection Officer Agent de la protection des réfugiés N/A Designated representative Représentant désigné N/A Minister's Counsel Conseil du ministre N/A You can obtain the translation of these reasons for decision in the other official language by writing to the Editing and Translation Services Directorate of the IRB at the following address: 344 Slater Street, 14th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K1, by e-mail at translation@irb.gc.ca or by facsimile at (613) 947-3213. La Direction des services de révision et de traduction de la CISR peut vous procurer les présents motifs de décision dans l'autre langue officielle. Vous n'avez qu'à en faire la demande par écrit à l'adresse suivante : 344, rue Slater, 14e étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K1, par courriel à traduction@cisr.gc.ca ou par télécopie au (613) 947-3213. ORAL DECISION According to the evidence, the claimant for refugee protection, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, a citizen of El Salvador, arrived in Canada on March 11, 2006 and claimed refugee protection that same day. Since this is an oral decision, the panel reserves the right to make grammatical and/or syntactical corrections and/or to add references to the case law cited, without, however, altering the content. The claimant alleges that he is a "person in need of protection" because he would be subjected to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he had to return to his country of origin. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS The Personal Information Form1 (PIF) disclosed the following facts: The claimant said that received death threats from the Maras Salvatruchas because he refused to join them. These, in substance, are the facts that led the claimant to leave his country and because of which he claims the protection of Canada. ANALYSIS A risk to a person's life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is a ground that allows a person to be recognized as a "person in need of protection" under paragraph 97(1)(b). The panel heard the testimony of the claimant and analysed all of the evidence. Consequently, the panel is satisfied as to the claimant's identity. As for the merits of this case: Pursuant to subsection 97(1)(b)2 of the Act, in order to be a "person in need of protection", the claimant must be able to establish that his removal to the country of reference would subject him personally to harm. It is not enough for the claimant to establish that the harm in question was inflicted in his country. The claimant must show that he would be personally subjected to the danger or to the risk, considering his particular situation or that of a person in a similar situation. In summary, under subparagraph 97(1)(b)(ii)3 of the Act, protection is limited to persons who face a particular risk that other people from that same country generally do not. Thus, the risk cannot be a random risk to which the claimant and other persons would be indiscriminately subjected. However, when he was asked about this, the claimant replied that street gangs, including the Mara Salvatrucha, recruit all over the country and target all levels of society regardless of age. Thus, these answers allow the panel to conclude that the risk that the claimant would face if he had to return to his country of origin is the same risk that would be faced by any other person in his country of origin. CONCLUSION Consequently, since the risk at issue is a generalized risk within the meaning of section 97(1)(b),4 the panel has no alternative but to reject this claim for refugee protection. Donal Archambault Me Donal Archambault August 29, 2006 Date 1 Exhibit P-1: Personal Information Form (PIF) of the claimant. 2 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, reads in part as follows: 97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. 3 Idem. 4 Ibidem. REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / BENCH REASONS / HARASSMENT / INDISCRIMINATE HARM / MALE / NEGATIVE / EL SALVADOR --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- RPD file No. / No. de dossier de la SPR: MA6-01394 3