MA5-00533

MA5-00533

Based on documentary evidence of changed circumstances (new government, general amnesty, FLAM's non‑violent stance) and the claimants' failure to demonstrate a credible, individualized risk of persecution on return for ethnicity or imputed political opinion, the panel concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA5-00533
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Negative Decision
Outcome
Refugee claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Ethnic Discrimination, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Political Opinion, Change of Circumstances, Country Conditions, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Ethnic Discrimination Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Political Opinion +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Negative Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether past arrests and discrimination amount to a real risk of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Based on documentary evidence of changed circumstances (new government, general amnesty, FLAM's non‑violent stance) and the claimants' failure to demonstrate a credible, individualized risk of persecution on return for ethnicity or imputed political opinion, the panel concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claims denied
  • Negative determination under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act