MA7-05089

MA7-05089

The claimant's harm results from generalized criminality without nexus to a Convention ground, he does not belong to a protected social group, evidence is inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated, and there is no credible individualized prospective risk or inability to access state protection; therefore the claim is rejected under ss.96–97 IRPA.

Citation
MA7-05089
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Daniel Rafuse; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Me Eveline Fiset
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Person in Need of Protection, Convention Refugee, Persecution, Torture, Risk to Life, Criminality, Particular Social Group, Credibility and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Person in Need of Protection Convention Refugee Persecution Torture +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Daniel Rafuse

Claimant's Counsel

Me Eveline Fiset

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether harm from non-state actors (bandits) amounts to persecution or a danger of torture

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's harm results from generalized criminality without nexus to a Convention ground, he does not belong to a protected social group, evidence is inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated, and there is no credible individualized prospective risk or inability to access state protection; therefore the claim is rejected under ss.96–97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected.