2023 RLLR 101

2023 RLLR 101

On the balance of probabilities the claimant faces a particularized, forward-looking risk from a criminal organization with entrenched links to state security and law enforcement; state protection was rebutted because police and prosecutors did not act and objective country information corroborates lack of protection; no safe internal flight alternative exists because of registration and mobilization risks and the ability of attackers to locate him; therefore the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
2023 RLLR 101
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim accepted; claimant found to be a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Business Extortion and Organized Crime, Military Conscription, Risk Assessment, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant faces a serious risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment from organized crime if returned to Russia
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground for refugee protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant faces a particularized, forward-looking risk from a criminal organization with entrenched links to state security and law enforcement; state protection was rebutted because police and prosecutors did not act and objective country information corroborates lack of protection; no safe internal flight alternative exists because of registration and mobilization risks and the ability of attackers to locate him; therefore the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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