TA2-01333

The claims were rejected because the adverse treatment amounted to localized harassment or hardship not persecution, there was no evidence state protection would be unavailable, and the security fears were generalized rather than individualized, so the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation: TA2-01333
Parties: Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 29 August 2003
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.170(b)) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome: Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: Persecution Religion, Person in Need of Protection, Generalized Risk, State Protection, Risk to Life
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Persecution Religion Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk State Protection Risk to Life

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

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.170(b)) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants face persecution on the basis of religion
2 Whether claimants face risk of torture or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment
3 Whether the risk claimed is individualized or a generalized risk faced by the population

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.