VA9-06090

VA9-06090

The claimant's risk of anti‑Semitic attacks is localized to her community and is not shown to follow her to Yekaterinburg; documentary evidence establishes feasible internal relocation and registration procedures; the claimant failed to discharge the burden to show relocation would be unreasonable or that removal would expose her to persecution, torture, or risk to life; therefore no Convention refugee status or need for protection was established.

Citation
VA9-06090
Parties
Claimant / Asylum Claimant: XXXX XXXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Persecution, Torture Risk, Residence Registration (propiska), Anti‑semitism, Gender‑related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Persecution Torture Risk Residence Registration (propiska) +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX

Claimant / Asylum Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Yekaterinburg is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's risk of anti‑Semitic attacks is localized to her community and is not shown to follow her to Yekaterinburg; documentary evidence establishes feasible internal relocation and registration procedures; the claimant failed to discharge the burden to show relocation would be unreasonable or that removal would expose her to persecution, torture, or risk to life; therefore no Convention refugee status or need for protection was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; no protection granted.