TA6-02750

TA6-02750

The panel rejected both claims because the principal claimant lacked subjective fear (having lived in the US for ~7 years without claiming asylum and testifying she had no fear when she left), her political activities were non‑leadership and resulted only in isolated incidents, there is no evidence she is presently or prospectively targeted in relation to her father's civil litigation, and documentary evidence indicates general country hardship rather than persecution for a Convention ground; accordingly neither claimant is a Convention refugee nor in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-02750
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irb Rpd) / Hearing and Decision (rpd Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected: both claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Political Opinion, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Family Association, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Prosecution, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Country Conditions, Non‑refoulement / Section 97 IRPA, Sojourning / Absence From Country, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Political Opinion Membership in a Particular Social Group Family Association Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Prosecution +5 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irb Rpd) / Hearing and Decision (rpd Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether each claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether each claimant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether each claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected both claims because the principal claimant lacked subjective fear (having lived in the US for ~7 years without claiming asylum and testifying she had no fear when she left), her political activities were non‑leadership and resulted only in isolated incidents, there is no evidence she is presently or prospectively targeted in relation to her father's civil litigation, and documentary evidence indicates general country hardship rather than persecution for a Convention ground; accordingly neither claimant is a Convention refugee nor in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: both claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed
  • No protection granted under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act