MA9-12058

MA9-12058

The Tribunal concluded on the totality of evidence that the claimants were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because (1) incidents with extremist neighbours were localized and could be avoided by internal relocation, (2) documentary and testimonial evidence showed Israel's labor market and social security measures did not systematically exclude the claimants' professions such that they would suffer serious economic deprivation, and (3) the co-claimant even obtained Israeli professional certification, so state discrimination to the level of persecution was not established.

Citation
MA9-12058
Parties
Principal Claimant: Mr. XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant: Ms. XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Merits Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution, Discrimination in Employment, Internal Flight Alternative, Serious Economic Deprivation, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 (grounds: nationality, political opinion, membership of particular social group)
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) (risk of torture, risk to life, risk of cruel or unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether alleged state discriminatory hiring practices constitute persecution or cause serious economic deprivation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal concluded on the totality of evidence that the claimants were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because (1) incidents with extremist neighbours were localized and could be avoided by internal relocation, (2) documentary and testimonial evidence showed Israel's labor market and social security measures did not systematically exclude the claimants' professions such that they would suffer serious economic deprivation, and (3) the co-claimant even obtained Israeli professional certification, so state discrimination to the level of persecution was not established.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee claims of Mr. XXXX XXXX and Ms. XXXX XXXX are rejected
  • Claimants may apply for Humanitarian and Compassionate consideration