TB1-06300

TB1-06300

The claim fails because the Panel did not find the claimant credible on a balance of probabilities, concluded the incidents described were criminal extortion without nexus to a Convention ground, and determined any risk to be a generalized extortion risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii); accordingly the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB1-06300
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 97) / Decision Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Violence Against Women, Sexual Assault, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Extortion, Generalized Risk, Re‑availment, Delay in Making Claim, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights Criminal Law Violence Against Women Sexual Assault Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Extortion +5 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 97) / Decision Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the Panel did not find the claimant credible on a balance of probabilities, concluded the incidents described were criminal extortion without nexus to a Convention ground, and determined any risk to be a generalized extortion risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii); accordingly the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; no protection granted.