TA0-11603

TA0-11603

On the evidence the claimant failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of torture; father's limited extortion incidents and cessation of road travel do not demonstrate targeted persecution or nexus to a Convention ground, and marriage to a Canadian does not credibly create individualized risk, therefore the claim is rejected.

Citation
TA0-11603
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer / Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Generalized Risk, Particular Social Group, FARC, Colombia
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear of Persecution Risk to Life Cruel and Unusual Treatment Generalized Risk +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer / Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a personalized risk from the FARC beyond generalized violence in Colombia
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between any risk and a Convention ground (membership of a particular social group)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the claimant failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of torture; father's limited extortion incidents and cessation of road travel do not demonstrate targeted persecution or nexus to a Convention ground, and marriage to a Canadian does not credibly create individualized risk, therefore the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Claim to refugee protection rejected