TB0-04253

TB0-04253

The claimant is not a member of a particular social group and therefore lacks nexus to a Convention ground under s.96; although he was personally targeted by MS gang recruitment and threatened, that risk is one faced generally by young people in El Salvador and does not establish individualized risk under s.97, so the claim for refugee protection and for protection under s.97 fails and is rejected.

Citation
TB0-04253
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Nexus, Generalized Risk, Gang Violence, Forced Recruitment, Extortion, Membership in a Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Nexus Generalized Risk Gang Violence +3 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has nexus to a Convention ground (membership in a particular social group)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or s.97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk faced is individualized or a generalized countrywide risk

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is not a member of a particular social group and therefore lacks nexus to a Convention ground under s.96; although he was personally targeted by MS gang recruitment and threatened, that risk is one faced generally by young people in El Salvador and does not establish individualized risk under s.97, so the claim for refugee protection and for protection under s.97 fails and is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim