2020 RLLR 65

2020 RLLR 65

Adult claimants were found credible on their claim of persecution as lesbians and established a serious possibility of persecution and inadequate state protection in Russia; the child claimant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked probative support that she would face a serious risk of persecution or torture upon return, and therefore the child does not meet the Convention refugee test nor the s.97(1) protection test.

Citation
2020 RLLR 65
Parties
Principal Claimant: [XXX]; Child Claimant (minor): [XXX]; Co Claimant (partner): [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee Determination) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Adult claimants accepted as Convention refugees; child claimant rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Sexual Orientation, Child Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Sexual Orientation Child Protection State Protection +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Principal Claimant

[XXX]

Child Claimant (minor)

[XXX]

Co Claimant (partner)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee Determination) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adult claimants are Convention refugees as members of a particular social group (lesbians)
  2. 2 Whether the child claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution or meets the test for protection under s.97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of evidence regarding harm to the child

Ratio Decidendi

Adult claimants were found credible on their claim of persecution as lesbians and established a serious possibility of persecution and inadequate state protection in Russia; the child claimant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked probative support that she would face a serious risk of persecution or torture upon return, and therefore the child does not meet the Convention refugee test nor the s.97(1) protection test.

Court Disposition

Adult claimants accepted as Convention refugees; child claimant rejected

Orders

  • Adult claimants (principal claimant and co-claimant) determined to be Convention refugees; claim allowed.
  • Child claimant's claim rejected; not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA.