TA7-15580

TA7-15580

The tribunal found the claimant's fear stems from past status as a restavek and generalized violence rather than a present persecution nexus to a Convention ground and that the risk on return is not individualized; accordingly the claimant and minors do not meet the definitions in sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA7-15580
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Asylum / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Restavek, Generalized Risk, Protection Under IRPA
Source Language
English

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Asylum / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether membership in a particular social group (former restavek) is established

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the claimant's fear stems from past status as a restavek and generalized violence rather than a present persecution nexus to a Convention ground and that the risk on return is not individualized; accordingly the claimant and minors do not meet the definitions in sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of the female claimant and the minor claimants are rejected.