TB5-09622

TB5-09622

The panel found the claimants were not credible on central allegations (assault, threats, residency interference), established the United Arab Emirates as the country of former habitual residence, and concluded that even accepting stateless Palestinian status and evidence of discrimination, the treatment did not meet the threshold of persecution or grounds for protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA; the recusal motion was dismissed as the integrity invitation did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly the claims were rejected.

Citation
TB5-09622
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Tribunal Member: Catherine Gaudet; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Reasons (final Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Country of Former Habitual Residence, Credibility Assessment, Statelessness, Bias/recusal (reasonable Apprehension of Bias), Well‑founded Fear of Persecution, Integrity Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Country of Former Habitual Residence Credibility Assessment Statelessness Bias/recusal (reasonable Apprehension of Bias) Well‑founded Fear of 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Catherine Gaudet

Tribunal Member

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Reasons (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the panel was biased by inviting the Minister on integrity
  2. 2 Whether claimants established identity and statelessness
  3. 3 What is the country of former habitual residence for stateless claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants were not credible on central allegations (assault, threats, residency interference), established the United Arab Emirates as the country of former habitual residence, and concluded that even accepting stateless Palestinian status and evidence of discrimination, the treatment did not meet the threshold of persecution or grounds for protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA; the recusal motion was dismissed as the integrity invitation did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims rejected
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA