TB1-05522

TB1-05522

The tribunal found the claimants suffered discrimination and harassment but not persecution because their fundamental human rights were not denied, they retained a means of livelihood (family farm and occasional work), and state protection in Croatia is available; therefore on the balance of probabilities they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB1-05522
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX (male claimant); Claimant: XXXX XXXX (female claimant); Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Michael Campbell; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Tribunal Member: B. Volpentesta
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, State Protection, Ethnicity Discrimination, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection State Protection Ethnicity Discrimination Credibility

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (male claimant)

Claimant

XXXX XXXX (female claimant)

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Michael Campbell

Counsel for Claimant

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

B. Volpentesta

Tribunal Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether mistreatment alleged amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the claimants suffered discrimination and harassment but not persecution because their fundamental human rights were not denied, they retained a means of livelihood (family farm and occasional work), and state protection in Croatia is available; therefore on the balance of probabilities they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are dismissed
  • Claims under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are dismissed