TB8-16232

TB8-16232

The panel found Gaza and the UAE to be countries of former habitual residence but concluded the claimants failed to establish a nexus between the harm feared and a Convention ground and failed to demonstrate a personalized risk under s.97. The panel also found the UAE residency cancellation was a result of voluntary/administrative exit procedures rather than discriminatory cancellation based on Palestinian ethnicity. Accordingly the claims are rejected under s.96 and s.97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB8-16232
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child (united States Citizen): XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): John P Howorun; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (panel Reasons)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Country of Former Habitual Residence, Nexus to Convention Ground, Personalized Risk Vs Generalized Risk, State Protection and Returnability, Visa Cancellation and Exit Procedures, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Statelessness Country of Former Habitual Residence Nexus to Convention Ground Personalized Risk Vs Generalized Risk State Protection and Returnability Visa Cancellation and Exit Procedures +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX

Child (united States Citizen)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

John P Howorun

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the country of former habitual residence?
  2. 2 Will the claimants suffer persecution or harm upon return?
  3. 3 Whether alleged harm has nexus to a Convention ground (s.96)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found Gaza and the UAE to be countries of former habitual residence but concluded the claimants failed to establish a nexus between the harm feared and a Convention ground and failed to demonstrate a personalized risk under s.97. The panel also found the UAE residency cancellation was a result of voluntary/administrative exit procedures rather than discriminatory cancellation based on Palestinian ethnicity. Accordingly the claims are rejected under s.96 and s.97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims rejected under s.96 and s.97 of the IRPA
  • No protection granted; no finding of risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment upon return