TB7-15404

TB7-15404

The panel found on the balance of probabilities that the threats arose from extortion (no nexus to a Convention ground) and that objective documentation and the claimant's own testimony established a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative in Tunja; therefore the claimants are neither Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1).

Citation
TB7-15404
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits (refugee Protection Division Decision)
Outcome
Claims for protection are rejected; claimants are found not to be Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility, Extortion/organized Crime, Protection Claims Under S.96 and S.97(1)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Asylum Internal Flight Alternative Nexus to Convention Grounds Credibility Extortion/organized Crime Protection Claims Under S.96 and S.97(1)

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits (refugee Protection Division Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention Refugees under s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between the persecution alleged and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found on the balance of probabilities that the threats arose from extortion (no nexus to a Convention ground) and that objective documentation and the claimant's own testimony established a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative in Tunja; therefore the claimants are neither Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims for protection are rejected; claimants are found not to be Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • The protection claims of the principal claimant and the minor claimant are rejected
  • No protection is granted under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act