TB7-05100

TB7-05100

The claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant was a member of or would be perceived as a member of the Hizmet movement and failed to provide reasonable corroboration; combined with the absence of a forward‑facing risk (they lived and exited Turkey without incident and no evidence of targeted interest), these findings disposes the claim—they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB7-05100
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97 / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Membership/perception of Hizmet/gulen Movement, Country Condition Evidence Turkey, Burden of Proof, Passport Cancellation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Membership/perception of Hizmet/gulen Movement Country Condition Evidence Turkey +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Brian Ibrahim Cintosun

Counsel for Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97 / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a member of or perceived to be a member of the Hizmet (Gulen) movement
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution by Turkish authorities if returned
  3. 3 Whether claimant could renew her passport or be arrested on return

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant was a member of or would be perceived as a member of the Hizmet movement and failed to provide reasonable corroboration; combined with the absence of a forward‑facing risk (they lived and exited Turkey without incident and no evidence of targeted interest), these findings disposes the claim—they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.