TB1-01602

TB1-01602

The claims were dismissed because the Board found no nexus to a Convention ground for persecution (s.96) and determined the risk on return was generalized and therefore excluded from protection under s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA; extortion and cartel violence against business owners, though real and harmful, constituted a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB1-01602
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Son (minor): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Claims dismissed. Claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Generalized Risk, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Extortion, Organized Crime, Particular Social Group, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97(1)(b) IRPA, Credibility and Delay
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Generalized Risk Nexus to Convention Grounds Extortion +5 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Son

XXXX XXXX

Son (minor)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established nexus to a Convention ground for persecution
  2. 2 Whether the risk faced by the claimants is personalized or a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether reporting crimes and resisting extortion imputes a political opinion or creates membership in a protected social group

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because the Board found no nexus to a Convention ground for persecution (s.96) and determined the risk on return was generalized and therefore excluded from protection under s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA; extortion and cartel violence against business owners, though real and harmful, constituted a widespread risk rather than a personalized risk warranting protection.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed. Claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claims rejected under Section 96 of the IRPA (no nexus to Convention grounds)
  • Claims rejected under Section 97(1)(b) of the IRPA (risk is generalized and not personalized)