TA7-07969

TA7-07969

The claims were rejected because the feared harm was criminality not linked to a Convention ground (no nexus), the risk was generalized and faced by the population of Guyana rather than particularized to the claimants, and the claimants' repeated returns to Guyana (re-availment) negatively affected credibility; therefore neither claimant is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA7-07969
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Secondary Claimant (former Common Law Spouse): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision (oral July 28, 2010; Written Reasons Sept 10, 2010)
Outcome
Both claims rejected; neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Nexus, Generalized Risk, Re Availment, Victim of Criminality, Particular Social Group, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Nexus Generalized Risk Re Availment Victim of Criminality Particular Social Group +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Secondary Claimant (former Common Law Spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision (oral July 28, 2010; Written Reasons Sept 10, 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the feared harm is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the feared harm was criminality not linked to a Convention ground (no nexus), the risk was generalized and faced by the population of Guyana rather than particularized to the claimants, and the claimants' repeated returns to Guyana (re-availment) negatively affected credibility; therefore neither claimant is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Both claims rejected; neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXX XXXXX (principal claimant) and XXXXX XXXXX (secondary claimant).