TA7-10156

TA7-10156

The member found the claimants' evidence unreliable due to significant omissions, inconsistencies and unexplained conduct (including failure to file complaints against former counsel), documentary country evidence showed at most a mere possibility of harm, state protection in the Czech and Slovak Republics is generally available and adequate, and the member's attempts to obtain explanation from former counsel did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly the claimants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the claims were dismissed.

Citation
TA7-10156
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXX XXX; Claimant (female): XXXXX XXXX XX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Bias and Reasonable Apprehension, Solicitor Client Privilege, State Protection, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Bias and Reasonable Apprehension Solicitor Client Privilege +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

XXXX XXXX XXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXX XX

Claimant (female)

XXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the member's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias by summoning former counsel and seeking waiver of solicitor-client privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The member found the claimants' evidence unreliable due to significant omissions, inconsistencies and unexplained conduct (including failure to file complaints against former counsel), documentary country evidence showed at most a mere possibility of harm, state protection in the Czech and Slovak Republics is generally available and adequate, and the member's attempts to obtain explanation from former counsel did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly the claimants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.