TA7-06905

TA7-06905

On the evidence the claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities and with clear and convincing proof where required, an individualized and Convention‑based risk of persecution or lack of effective state/international protection: principal claimant offered only generalized trafficking fear and no evidence of inadequate Albanian protection; male claimant provided no persuasive evidence of religious persecution and failed to show that state/UNMIK protection against blood feud would be ineffective; minors produced no evidence of fear. Therefore none qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TA7-06905
Parties
Principal Claimant / Designated Representative for Minors: XXXXX XXXXX; Male Claimant / Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (merits)
Outcome
All five claimants dismissed: not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Well Founded Fear, State Protection Adequacy, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Blood Feud / Non Convention Crime, Recognition Elsewhere / Safe Third Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Trafficking State Protection Religious Freedom Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Well Founded Fear +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant / Designated Representative for Minors

XXXXX XXXXX

Male Claimant / Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether adequate state or international protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities and with clear and convincing proof where required, an individualized and Convention‑based risk of persecution or lack of effective state/international protection: principal claimant offered only generalized trafficking fear and no evidence of inadequate Albanian protection; male claimant provided no persuasive evidence of religious persecution and failed to show that state/UNMIK protection against blood feud would be ineffective; minors produced no evidence of fear. Therefore none qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

All five claimants dismissed: not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) of the IRPA