MA2-03294

MA2-03294

The panel concluded the claimant is not a Convention refugee because his fear of the abuser lacks nexus to a Convention ground, but is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA because return to Haiti would expose him to a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment with no effective state protection and, given his status as an abandoned minor, the best interests of the child preclude removal; the panel accepted the claimant's identity and citizenship for decision-making purposes on the evidence and submissions before it.

Citation
MA2-03294
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jean Fauteux; Designated Representative (sarimm): XXXXXXXXXX; Minister's Counsel: Me Djénane Boulad; Refugee Protection Officer: Judith Malka; Panel Member: Me Jean-Guy Jam
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (person in Need of Protection) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Claim accepted: claimant found to be a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA
Legal Topics
Person in Need of Protection, Convention Refugee Definition, Best Interests of the Child, Identity and Citizenship, State Protection, Abandoned/ Deserted Child, Risk to Life, Credibility and Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Child Rights Law Citizenship Law Person in Need of Protection Convention Refugee Definition Best Interests of the Child Identity and Citizenship +4 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Me Jean Fauteux

Claimant's Counsel

XXXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative (sarimm)

Me Djénane Boulad

Minister's Counsel

Judith Malka

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Jean-Guy Jam

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (person in Need of Protection) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established identity and citizenship
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's fear has nexus to a Convention ground (Convention refugee)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant faces a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment and cannot obtain state protection (person in need of protection)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded the claimant is not a Convention refugee because his fear of the abuser lacks nexus to a Convention ground, but is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA because return to Haiti would expose him to a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment with no effective state protection and, given his status as an abandoned minor, the best interests of the child preclude removal; the panel accepted the claimant's identity and citizenship for decision-making purposes on the evidence and submissions before it.

Court Disposition

Claim accepted: claimant found to be a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection accepted; claimant declared a person in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Claimant is not removed to Haiti in light of the finding (direction to Immigration authorities to give effect to protection finding)