MB0-03999

MB0-03999

The claim was dismissed because the evidence established episodic harassment, isolated police incidents and earlier detention linked to union activity rather than a protected ground; the incidents did not cumulatively amount to persecution and there is no reasonable or serious possibility of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Citation
MB0-03999
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim denied; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Religion, Ethnicity, Political Opinion, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Discrimination, Harassment, Visitor Visa, Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection/nexus
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights Law Religion Ethnicity Political Opinion Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Discrimination +4 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of religion (Alevi) or ethnicity (Kurd)
  2. 2 Whether incidents alleged constitute persecution or are isolated acts of harassment
  3. 3 Whether there is a nexus between alleged ill‑treatment and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the evidence established episodic harassment, isolated police incidents and earlier detention linked to union activity rather than a protected ground; the incidents did not cumulatively amount to persecution and there is no reasonable or serious possibility of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.