TB4-09250

TB4-09250

The panel found the claimants did not meet the definition of Convention refugee nor the threshold under s.97 because the harms were discriminatory rather than persecutory or not of sufficient seriousness/repetition to violate fundamental rights, documentary evidence showed available and operative state protection in Slovakia which the claimants failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence, and credibility and lack of corroboration further undermined the claimants' case.

Citation
TB4-09250
Parties
Principal Claimant / Applicant: XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 1994); Co Claimant / Spouse / Applicant: XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 1996); Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 2014); Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 2012); Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Section 97 Irpa) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, State Protection, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Credibility Assessment, Cumulative Discrimination, Medical Care and Protection of Minors
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Definition State Protection Persecution Vs Discrimination Credibility Assessment +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 1994)

Principal Claimant / Applicant

XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 1996)

Co Claimant / Spouse / Applicant

XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 2014)

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX (born XXXX XXXX, 2012)

Minor Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Section 97 Irpa) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees (nexus to race/ethnicity)
  2. 2 Whether cumulative discrimination constitutes persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Slovakia is adequate or unavailable

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants did not meet the definition of Convention refugee nor the threshold under s.97 because the harms were discriminatory rather than persecutory or not of sufficient seriousness/repetition to violate fundamental rights, documentary evidence showed available and operative state protection in Slovakia which the claimants failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence, and credibility and lack of corroboration further undermined the claimants' case.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA.