2019 RLLR 216

2019 RLLR 216

Two claimants (the principal claimant and the youngest child) were excluded from Convention protection under Article 1(e) because they possess permanent residence in Japan tantamount to status substantially similar to nationality; the remaining three claimants were found to be Convention refugees because credible testimony and corroborative country evidence establish a well-founded fear of persecution in China linked to race and religion, the State is the persecutor, state protection is unavailable and no internal flight alternative exists.

Citation
2019 RLLR 216
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX; Member: S. Morgan
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (bench Reasons)
Outcome
Claims of Mr. XXXX and the youngest child are excluded under Article 1(e); claims of Ms. XXXX and the two older children are accepted and they are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Article 1(e) Exclusion, Convention Refugee Status, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility Findings, Internal Flight Alternative, State Persecution of Uyghurs
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Article 1(e) Exclusion Convention Refugee Status Nexus to Convention Grounds Credibility Findings +2 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX

Claimant

S. Morgan

Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (bench Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1(e) exclusion applies because of status in Japan
  2. 2 Whether claimants are Convention refugees in relation to risk on return to China
  3. 3 Whether internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

Two claimants (the principal claimant and the youngest child) were excluded from Convention protection under Article 1(e) because they possess permanent residence in Japan tantamount to status substantially similar to nationality; the remaining three claimants were found to be Convention refugees because credible testimony and corroborative country evidence establish a well-founded fear of persecution in China linked to race and religion, the State is the persecutor, state protection is unavailable and no internal flight alternative exists.

Court Disposition

Claims of Mr. XXXX and the youngest child are excluded under Article 1(e); claims of Ms. XXXX and the two older children are accepted and they are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Exclude Mr. XXXX and the youngest child from Convention refugee protection pursuant to Article 1(e)
  • Grant Convention refugee status to Ms. XXXX and the two older children