TA4-11975

TA4-11975

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to meet the balance of probabilities standard: documentary country evidence rebutted the central allegation about risk from interfaith marriage, claimant delay and prolonged illegal residence in the United States undermined subjective fear and credibility, family disapproval and vague threats were not persecution, minors were U.S. citizens with no identified risk, and no evidence supported danger of torture or serious harm; therefore claims fail under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA4-11975
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Donald Cooper; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persecution, Religion, Particular Social Group, Family, Credibility, Delay, State Protection, Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations, Children
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Persecution Religion Particular Social Group Family +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Donald Cooper

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Respondent Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adult claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh or Mexico on Convention grounds
  2. 2 Whether familial ostracism and vague threats amount to persecution
  3. 3 Whether the U.S.-born minor claimants face a real risk of persecution or serious harm in the United States

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to meet the balance of probabilities standard: documentary country evidence rebutted the central allegation about risk from interfaith marriage, claimant delay and prolonged illegal residence in the United States undermined subjective fear and credibility, family disapproval and vague threats were not persecution, minors were U.S. citizens with no identified risk, and no evidence supported danger of torture or serious harm; therefore claims fail under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • The claims of the five claimants are rejected
  • Claims fail under ss.96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act