MB4-00118

MB4-00118

The Tribunal rejected the claims because the evidence showed the principal claimant was targeted in Islamabad for occupational reasons (to coerce hiring), not because of his Christian faith; there was no evidence the persecutors from Rawalpindi would pursue them in Islamabad; the claimants were able to obtain passports and visas undermining the hiding assertion; there was no state involvement or established risk of torture; and Islamabad was a reasonable internal flight alternative given their education and family ties, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1).

Citation
MB4-00118
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXXXXXX XXXX; Claimant Minor Child: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Harry Dortelus
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Post‑hearing Decision and Reasons (hearing March 14, 2014; Decision April 15, 2014)
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Religious Persecution, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Religious Persecution +1 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant Spouse

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Minor Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Harry Dortelus

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Post‑hearing Decision and Reasons (hearing March 14, 2014; Decision April 15, 2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account of religiously motivated threats and hiding

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal rejected the claims because the evidence showed the principal claimant was targeted in Islamabad for occupational reasons (to coerce hiring), not because of his Christian faith; there was no evidence the persecutors from Rawalpindi would pursue them in Islamabad; the claimants were able to obtain passports and visas undermining the hiding assertion; there was no state involvement or established risk of torture; and Islamabad was a reasonable internal flight alternative given their education and family ties, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Mrs. XXXXXXXX XXXX and their minor child XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX are rejected (decision dated April 15, 2014)