TA8-07781

TA8-07781

Because Guatemala is a functioning state taking measures against crime, the presumption of state protection stands; the principal claimant failed to personally seek or exhaust state protection and did not present clear and convincing evidence that protection was inadequate; the threat posed by Mara 18 amounted to generalized gang risk rather than individualized persecution with a Convention nexus; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA8-07781
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (second): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; principal and second claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Generalized Risk, Extortion, Gang Violence, Torture and Cruel or Unusual Treatment, Burden of Proof, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility and Exhaustion of Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Generalized Risk Extortion Gang Violence +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (second)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Guatemala is adequate and was reasonably sought

Ratio Decidendi

Because Guatemala is a functioning state taking measures against crime, the presumption of state protection stands; the principal claimant failed to personally seek or exhaust state protection and did not present clear and convincing evidence that protection was inadequate; the threat posed by Mara 18 amounted to generalized gang risk rather than individualized persecution with a Convention nexus; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; principal and second claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims (decision dated July 23, 2010).