TA1-13324

TA1-13324

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants' testimony and evidence were not credible or sufficiently corroborated, they failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Israeli state protection was inadequate, and the misconduct alleged amounted to discrimination rather than persecution; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA1-13324
Parties
Claimant (husband): XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (wife): XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: C. Gibbs
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (sections 96 and 97, Irpa) / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Religious Discrimination, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Credibility Assessment, Joinder of Cases
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (husband)

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (wife)

C. Gibbs

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (sections 96 and 97, Irpa) / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimants' testimony and documents

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants' testimony and evidence were not credible or sufficiently corroborated, they failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Israeli state protection was inadequate, and the misconduct alleged amounted to discrimination rather than persecution; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA