MB1-04095

MB1-04095

The panel found the claimants did not discharge the burden to show a well-founded fear on a Convention ground or a balance of probabilities risk under s.97(1) because the threats of kidnapping and criminal violence were generalized, not individualized, and the claimant had available familial protection in Haiti; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB1-04095
Parties
Claimant (adult): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX X; Claimant (child): XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Mylène Barrière; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Risk of Rape, Generalized Risk, State Protection, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Risk of Rape Generalized Risk State Protection +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant (adult)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX X

Claimant (child)

XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (child)

Me Mylène Barrière

Claimant's Counsel

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk of kidnapping/rape is individualized or a generalized risk

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants did not discharge the burden to show a well-founded fear on a Convention ground or a balance of probabilities risk under s.97(1) because the threats of kidnapping and criminal violence were generalized, not individualized, and the claimant had available familial protection in Haiti; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected
  • Claimants determined not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection