VA5-00531

VA5-00531

The panel accepted the principal claimant's credible testimony and corroborating documents, found the fear of persecution was linked to perceived political opinion and family membership, determined Afghanistan could not provide effective state protection and that no viable internal flight alternative existed; therefore the principal claimant and two children were Convention refugees, while one claimant who has permanent resident rights in another country is excluded under Article 1E.

Citation
VA5-00531
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX; Son (minor): XXXXX XXXXXX; Son (minor): XXXX XXXX; Daughter (minor): XXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (oral Jan 31, 2006; Written Feb 15, 2006)
Outcome
Claim allowed in part: three claimants found to be Convention refugees; one claimant excluded under Article 1E
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Article 1 E Exclusion, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, Family Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Protection Convention Refugee Status Article 1 E Exclusion State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Related Persecution +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXXX

Son (minor)

XXXX XXXX

Son (minor)

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Daughter (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (oral Jan 31, 2006; Written Feb 15, 2006)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether Article 1E excludes one claimant with permanent residence in another country
  3. 3 Whether the feared harm constitutes persecution linked to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the principal claimant's credible testimony and corroborating documents, found the fear of persecution was linked to perceived political opinion and family membership, determined Afghanistan could not provide effective state protection and that no viable internal flight alternative existed; therefore the principal claimant and two children were Convention refugees, while one claimant who has permanent resident rights in another country is excluded under Article 1E.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part: three claimants found to be Convention refugees; one claimant excluded under Article 1E

Orders

  • XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX are determined to be Convention refugees as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • XXXXX XXXXX is excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention (rights and obligations attached to possession of nationality/ permanent residence in another country).