TB5-00067

TB5-00067

The RPD concluded the claimants did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution because the adverse treatment stems from neutral UAE immigration and residency laws of general application rather than targeted persecutory conduct; the adult claimant retained a valid residency permit and a travel document, the evidence did not show Palestinians/stateless persons are singled out for persecution, and no objectively reasonable risk under s.97 was established for the minor; accordingly the claims failed.

Citation
TB5-00067
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing — Oral Negative Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claims denied — claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Statelessness, Country of Former Habitual Residence, Nexus to Convention Refugee Grounds, Laws of General Application Vs. Persecution, Section 97 Protection (risk of Torture/cruel Treatment)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Statelessness Country of Former Habitual Residence Nexus to Convention Refugee Grounds Laws of General Application Vs. Persecution Section 97 Protection (risk of Torture/cruel Treatment)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing — Oral Negative Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Determination of country of reference and effective citizenship
  2. 2 Whether statelessness and denial of right of return constitute persecution
  3. 3 Whether impugned measures are laws of general application or persecutory

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD concluded the claimants did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution because the adverse treatment stems from neutral UAE immigration and residency laws of general application rather than targeted persecutory conduct; the adult claimant retained a valid residency permit and a travel document, the evidence did not show Palestinians/stateless persons are singled out for persecution, and no objectively reasonable risk under s.97 was established for the minor; accordingly the claims failed.

Court Disposition

Claims denied — claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA