TA5-02483

TA5-02483

On the balance of evidence the panel found the factual incidents and country documentation establish discrimination rather than persecution; claimants failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence; delay and repeated re‑availment to Israel further undermined credibility, therefore claims for Convention refugee status and protection under s.97 IRPA are rejected.

Citation
TA5-02483
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant (son): XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (wife): XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor Child): XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: S. Indrasigamany; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Claim / Rehearing De Novo; Negative Determination / Decision (final)
Outcome
Claims denied; negative determination
Legal Topics
Persecution Vs Discrimination, State Protection, Delay and Reavailment, Family Based Claims, Freedom of Religion, Psychological Evidence / PTSD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Persecution Vs Discrimination State Protection Delay and Reavailment Family Based Claims +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant (daughter)

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant (son)

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (wife)

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor Child)

S. Indrasigamany

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Respondent Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Claim / Rehearing De Novo; Negative Determination / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face persecution or mere discrimination on return to Israel
  2. 2 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether delay and repeated re‑availment to Israel undermine credibility of fear claims

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of evidence the panel found the factual incidents and country documentation establish discrimination rather than persecution; claimants failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence; delay and repeated re‑availment to Israel further undermined credibility, therefore claims for Convention refugee status and protection under s.97 IRPA are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims denied; negative determination

Orders

  • Negative determination: all refugee protection claims and claims for persons in need of protection dismissed