TB1-02500

TB1-02500

The claimants' testimony lacked credibility and objective corroboration, their political involvement was minimal and episodic, incidents were isolated mass‑event detentions, there was no evidence of ongoing state interest or targeted persecution, and military evasion without objective evidence of conscientious objection does not amount to persecution; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB1-02500
Parties
Claimant (asylum Seeker): XXXX XXXX XX; Claimant (asylum Seeker): XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Section 97 Protection, Credibility Assessment, Military Evasion, Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Section 97 Protection Credibility Assessment Military Evasion +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Claimant (asylum Seeker)

XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Seeker)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Assessment of claimants' credibility and objective evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' testimony lacked credibility and objective corroboration, their political involvement was minimal and episodic, incidents were isolated mass‑event detentions, there was no evidence of ongoing state interest or targeted persecution, and military evasion without objective evidence of conscientious objection does not amount to persecution; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims dismissed as unfounded