TA8-20980

TA8-20980

The Tribunal found the evidence demonstrated discrimination but not persecution; there was no persuasive, objective, and recent evidence that the claimants would be persecuted on a Convention ground or at personal risk of torture if returned to Macedonia, and the alleged blood feud was not shown to be ongoing; therefore the claims under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1) are rejected.

Citation
TA8-20980
Parties
Claimant: XXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following RPD Hearing and Consideration of Evidence and Submissions
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the four claimants.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Non Refoulement, Compelling Reasons (article 1 C(5) Unhcr), Particular Social Group, Political Opinion, Ethnicity Discrimination, Blood Feud, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Non Refoulement Compelling Reasons (article 1 C(5) Unhcr) +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following RPD Hearing and Consideration of Evidence and Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97(1)
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between alleged harm and protected grounds (ethnicity, political opinion, membership of family)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the evidence demonstrated discrimination but not persecution; there was no persuasive, objective, and recent evidence that the claimants would be persecuted on a Convention ground or at personal risk of torture if returned to Macedonia, and the alleged blood feud was not shown to be ongoing; therefore the claims under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1) are rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the four claimants.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXX XXXX, XXXXX XXXX, XXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXX XXXX under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).