MA1-02617

MA1-02617

The claimants' testimonies were found not credible due to omissions and contradictions in their PIFs and oral evidence; independent documentary evidence showed Israeli law and institutions provide protection to religious and ethnic minorities and to immigrants (including school reporting obligations and police complaint mechanisms); refusal to perform compulsory military service does not ordinarily constitute persecution; on that basis the panel concluded the claimants failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 or that they are persons in need of protection under s.97 and dismissed the claims.

Citation
MA1-02617
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Spouse/claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Adult Daughter (claimant): XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (claimant): XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (claimant): XXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Michelle Langelier; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer (filing of documents); Designated Representative: XXXXXXXXX; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Held August 13, 2002; Decision Rendered September 19, 2002
Outcome
Refugee claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Convention Against Torture, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Nationality, Religion, Political Opinion, Draft Evasion/military Service, Credibility Assessment, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Convention Against Torture Membership of a Particular Social Group Nationality +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXX

Spouse/claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Adult Daughter (claimant)

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child (claimant)

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Child (claimant)

Me Michelle Langelier

Claimant's Counsel

Refugee Protection Officer (filing of documents)

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Held August 13, 2002; Decision Rendered September 19, 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Act (danger of torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' testimonies were found not credible due to omissions and contradictions in their PIFs and oral evidence; independent documentary evidence showed Israeli law and institutions provide protection to religious and ethnic minorities and to immigrants (including school reporting obligations and police complaint mechanisms); refusal to perform compulsory military service does not ordinarily constitute persecution; on that basis the panel concluded the claimants failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 or that they are persons in need of protection under s.97 and dismissed the claims.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • The refugee claims of XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX (adult), XXXXX XXXXX (minor) and XXXXXXXXXXX (minor) are dismissed