2020 RLLR 143

2020 RLLR 143

The panel accepted the adults' credibility and found the objective country evidence and claimant evidence established a nexus to political opinion and a serious possibility of persecution by state actors; state protection and internal relocation were objectively unreasonable, therefore the principal claimant and his spouse meet the definition of Convention refugee under s.96. The two minor claimants were found to be U.S. citizens and did not meet the requirements for protection under s.96 or s.97(1), so their claims were rejected.

Citation
2020 RLLR 143
Parties
Principal Claimant: [XXX]; Associate Claimant (spouse): [XXX]; Minor Claimant: [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Decision
Outcome
Principal claimant and spouse accepted as Convention refugees; two minor claimants rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Political Opinion, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Political Opinion Gender Based Persecution State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Principal Claimant

[XXX]

Associate Claimant (spouse)

[XXX]

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of claimants
  2. 2 nexus between persecution and political opinion
  3. 3 well-founded fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the adults' credibility and found the objective country evidence and claimant evidence established a nexus to political opinion and a serious possibility of persecution by state actors; state protection and internal relocation were objectively unreasonable, therefore the principal claimant and his spouse meet the definition of Convention refugee under s.96. The two minor claimants were found to be U.S. citizens and did not meet the requirements for protection under s.96 or s.97(1), so their claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Principal claimant and spouse accepted as Convention refugees; two minor claimants rejected

Orders

  • Accept claim of principal claimant [XXX] pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Accept claim of associate claimant (spouse) [XXX] pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act