MA4-07796

The panel found the harm was vengeance without nexus to a Convention ground and that Uruguay provided effective state protection; the single uncorroborated police complaint did not rebut the presumption of available protection, therefore the claimants are not persons in need of protection.

Citation: MA4-07796
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 23 August 2005
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome: Claim rejected; claimants are not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: State Protection, Membership of a Social Group, Persecution, Harassment, Union Conflict, Credibility Assessment, Risk Under Subsection 97(1)(b)
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law State Protection Membership of a Social Group Persecution Harassment Union Conflict Credibility Assessment +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA
2 Whether the alleged harm is linked to a Convention ground
3 Whether effective state protection in Uruguay is available to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not persons in need of protection.