TA6-09679

TA6-09679

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to prove a subjective and objective basis for persecution or a real risk of serious harm: the minor is a U.S. citizen with no asserted risk in the U.S.; the principal's political activity was minimal and ceased; purported threats and letters were not produced or were inconsistent with other documentary evidence (including a reissued Zimbabwean passport and conciliatory family communications); credibility and evidentiary deficiencies meant the well-founded fear and s.97 thresholds were not met.

Citation
TA6-09679
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX; Minor Dependant (son): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim — Convention Refugee and S.97 Protection / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Political Opinion, Section 97 Protection, Family Membership, Credibility, Evidentiary Burden
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Political Opinion Section 97 Protection Family Membership +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Dependant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim — Convention Refugee and S.97 Protection / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees based on actual or perceived political opinion or membership in a particular social group (family)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the minor dependant, a United States citizen, faces a real risk in the United States

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to prove a subjective and objective basis for persecution or a real risk of serious harm: the minor is a U.S. citizen with no asserted risk in the U.S.; the principal's political activity was minimal and ceased; purported threats and letters were not produced or were inconsistent with other documentary evidence (including a reissued Zimbabwean passport and conciliatory family communications); credibility and evidentiary deficiencies meant the well-founded fear and s.97 thresholds were not met.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection by XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA.