MA6-06411

MA6-06411

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible as holding a political opinion contrary to the State of Israel, the refusal to serve as a reservist resulted in a lawful sanction under a law of general application which he already served, and objective facts (possession of passport and departure) show no reasonable chance of future persecution; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA6-06411
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Sabine Venturelli; Decision Maker: José wa Tshisungu Tshisungu; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Military Service and Reservists, Conscientious Objection, Imprisonment, Credibility, Law of General Application, Passports and Exit From Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Military Service and Reservists +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Sabine Venturelli

Claimant's Counsel

José wa Tshisungu Tshisungu

Decision Maker

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for political opinion
  2. 2 Whether refusal to serve as a military reservist constitutes persecution or only enforcement of a law of general application
  3. 3 Whether the claimant qualifies as a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible as holding a political opinion contrary to the State of Israel, the refusal to serve as a reservist resulted in a lawful sanction under a law of general application which he already served, and objective facts (possession of passport and departure) show no reasonable chance of future persecution; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim is dismissed; no protection granted