MA8-13640

MA8-13640

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant failed to establish genuine conscientious objection or evidence he was or would be compelled to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law; the penalties for refusing reserve service are prosecution under a law of general application and not persecution on a Convention ground; the claimants failed to prove lack of effective state protection and credibility issues undermined their evidence.

Citation
MA8-13640
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXXXXX; Daughter (minor): XXXX XXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 & 97(1)) / Hearing Decision Rendered
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Conscientious Objection, Military Service/reservist Duty, Desertion/draft Evasion, Persecution Vs Prosecution, Ethnic/nationality Discrimination, State Protection
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Administrative Law Conscientious Objection Military Service/reservist Duty Desertion/draft Evasion +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXXXXX

Daughter (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 & 97(1)) / Hearing Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is a genuine conscientious objector
  2. 2 Whether refusal to perform reserve military duties and potential imprisonment constitutes persecution on a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether alleged discrimination against claimants as Russian-origin amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant failed to establish genuine conscientious objection or evidence he was or would be compelled to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law; the penalties for refusing reserve service are prosecution under a law of general application and not persecution on a Convention ground; the claimants failed to prove lack of effective state protection and credibility issues undermined their evidence.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claims of XXXX XXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXX and XXXX XXXXXXX are rejected