Category: Persons in Need of Protection

The Court set aside a negative finding holding that the tribunal had erred in finding generalized risk The applicant had been targeted by gangs and had gone to the police and had been the victim of extortion at the hands of the police. The court held that the tribunal erred in finding generalized risk in the circumstances. The court also found error in the finding of lack of nexus given the evidence disclosed the applicant feared being a victim of rape.

The Court set aside a decision base don inconsistencies in the POE notes due to the fact they were not translated to her. The court also noted htere is no requirement for subjective fear under section 97.

The Court set aside a decision on generalized risk noting:[100] So it is clear that, in considering future risk to the Applicants, the RPD only considered that risk from the perspective of someone who is “well-off.” But, as the Principal Applicant made clear, and as the RPD recited in the facts, the Principal Applicant’s fear of targeting in the future is not based upon her being “well-off.” It is based, rather, on her fear that she is now associated with the death of a Clansman gang member and that she will, as a result, be specifically targeted by a powerful and vindictive gang. Her employer obviously shared those fears and provided personal protection, so the Principal Applicant has some support for her views of what will happen to her. [101] In focusing on the “well-off” issue, the RPD appears to have overlooked this aspect of prospective risk. I am not saying that the RPD should have found that the Applicants faced a personalized risk if returned to Jamaica. What I am saying is that the fear of prospective harm at the hands of the Clansmen gang because of the Principal Applicant’s role in assisting the police and the death of a gang member was really the heart of their claim, and I think it was unreasonable for the RPD not to address this stated fear and consider whether, on the facts of this particular case, it raised a personalized risk. See ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Zacharias, above, at paragraph 17.

This case deals with the issue of generlized risk. The COurt set aside a decision that the risk faced by a youth who was the victim of forced recruitment was generalized. The COurt noted that even if the risk of gangs in central america is generalized the tribunal must consider the particular circumstances to determine whether the risk in this case is a particular or general risk. The fact that the applicant had been recruited to the gang and specifically targeted suggested that the risk was not a general one.

The Court set aside a PRRA decision. The court discusses the concept of conscientious objection and also holds that being sent to a country where there is a risk of imprisonment in inhumane conditions can be a ground for risk under section 97.

The Court held that the concept of generalized risk included risks which were felt by an entire portion of the population so as to preclude a finding of being a person in need of protection.