MA6-05104

MA6-05104

Claimants failed to prove that the male claimant would, if conscripted, be required to participate in systematic or widespread violations of international humanitarian law such that refusal would attract refugee protection under UNHCR Handbook para 171, and they failed to show that punishment for desertion would be persecution or discriminatory; the female claimant failed to establish a credible risk of persecution on Convention grounds. Therefore both claims are rejected.

Citation
MA6-05104
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
Conscientious Objection, Desertion/draft Evasion, Persecution Based on Political Opinion, Persecution Based on Religion, Risk of Torture or Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Detention, Exclusion From Refugee Status
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law International Humanitarian Law Human Rights Conscientious Objection Desertion/draft Evasion Persecution Based on Political Opinion Persecution Based on Religion +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to perform military service or desertion constitutes persecution under Convention grounds
  2. 2 Whether the claimant would be required to participate in serious violations of international humanitarian law such that refusal would ground refugee protection under UNHCR Handbook para 171
  3. 3 Whether punishment for desertion would amount to persecution or discriminatory treatment on Convention grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to prove that the male claimant would, if conscripted, be required to participate in systematic or widespread violations of international humanitarian law such that refusal would attract refugee protection under UNHCR Handbook para 171, and they failed to show that punishment for desertion would be persecution or discriminatory; the female claimant failed to establish a credible risk of persecution on Convention grounds. Therefore both claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA and are not persons in need of protection within the meaning of paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA.