MA5-04481
Claimants failed to establish individualized persecution or a personal risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; therefore they do not meet the definitions in sections 96 or 97 IRPA and the protection claims are rejected.
- Citation
- MA5-04481
- Parties
- Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection / Oral Hearing and Decision (rpd)
- Outcome
- refugee protection claims rejected
- Legal Topics
- Refugee Protection, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Membership in a Particular Social Group (family), State Protection, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Indiscriminate Harm, Credibility and Corroboration
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Claimant
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Claimant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Oral Hearing and Decision (rpd)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
- 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) IRPA
- 3 Whether the risk alleged is individualized or general/indiscriminate
Ratio Decidendi
Claimants failed to establish individualized persecution or a personal risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; therefore they do not meet the definitions in sections 96 or 97 IRPA and the protection claims are rejected.
Court Disposition
refugee protection claims rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment