MA9-10709

MA9-10709

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's account was found not credible and implausible, the incidents alleged constituted generalized criminality without nexus to a Convention ground (not a particular social group-based persecution), and the claimant failed to discharge the burden to show relocation within Haiti would be unreasonable (internal flight alternative exists); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA9-10709
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX-XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant (withdrawn): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claim of minor daughter withdrawn accepted.
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Violence, State Protection, Generalized Risk
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Particular Social Group Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Gender Based Persecution Sexual Violence +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX-XXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (withdrawn)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of claimant
  2. 2 nexus to the Convention ground of particular social group
  3. 3 availability of internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's account was found not credible and implausible, the incidents alleged constituted generalized criminality without nexus to a Convention ground (not a particular social group-based persecution), and the claimant failed to discharge the burden to show relocation within Haiti would be unreasonable (internal flight alternative exists); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claim of minor daughter withdrawn accepted.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX-XXXXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are rejected.
  • Withdrawal of refugee protection claim of minor daughter XXXX XXXX is accepted.