TB7-06331

TB7-06331

The claimants failed to show that the threats and extortion they experienced were for reasons linked to a Convention ground or that they faced a risk individualized beyond the generalized, pervasive extortion risk in Honduras; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB7-06331
Parties
Male Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Principal Claimant (wife): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Mother: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision on Claims Under Sections 96 and 97 of IRPA (post Hearing Disclosure Considered)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Particular Social Group, Extortion, Country Condition Assessment, Risk to Life, Protection Claim
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Particular Social Group Extortion Country Condition Assessment +2 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Mother

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision on Claims Under Sections 96 and 97 of IRPA (post Hearing Disclosure Considered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established identity
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether the risk is individualized or a generalized country-wide risk

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to show that the threats and extortion they experienced were for reasons linked to a Convention ground or that they faced a risk individualized beyond the generalized, pervasive extortion risk in Honduras; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection dismissed; no protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA