MB0-05903

MB0-05903

The claims were dismissed because the panel found the principal claimant's testimony partly exaggerated and insufficiently corroborated and, critically, the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Israeli state protection is inadequate in their specific circumstances; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
MB0-05903
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant (son): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Concluded and Decision Rendered (refugee Determination)
Outcome
Claims denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Persecution on Political and Religious Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Credibility Assessment Gender Related 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Concluded and Decision Rendered (refugee Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Israel is inadequate in the claimants' specific circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because the panel found the principal claimant's testimony partly exaggerated and insufficiently corroborated and, critically, the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Israeli state protection is inadequate in their specific circumstances; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; no protection granted to the claimants