MA8-03348

MA8-03348

Claimants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution linked to a Convention ground or an individualized risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return to Serbia; available country evidence demonstrates state protection and absence of systematic persecution, therefore both Convention refugee and s.97(1)(b) protection requirements are not met and the claims are rejected.

Citation
MA8-03348
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX); Claimant (infant): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection Under S.97(1)(b), Credibility, Persecution, Discrimination, Civil War and Indiscriminate Harm, Jurisdiction (humanitarian and Compassionate)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Under S.97(1)(b) Credibility Persecution Discrimination +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (infant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimed risk is individualized or an indiscriminate general risk

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution linked to a Convention ground or an individualized risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return to Serbia; available country evidence demonstrates state protection and absence of systematic persecution, therefore both Convention refugee and s.97(1)(b) protection requirements are not met and the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX), XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX) and XXXXX XXXXX are rejected.