VA2-01479

VA2-01479

The claimant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the United States is unwilling or unable to protect him from the alleged harm; the prosecution is criminal rather than persecution, there are no substantial grounds to believe he faces torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Citation
VA2-01479
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Panel: Paulah Dauns; Refugee Protection Officer: Marilyn Babcock; Minister's Counsel: Shelly Buckoll
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Torture, Selective Prosecution, Medical Marijuana
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Paulah Dauns

Panel

Marilyn Babcock

Refugee Protection Officer

Shelly Buckoll

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution is politically motivated/constitutes persecution or is selective prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the United States is unwilling or unable to protect him from the alleged harm; the prosecution is criminal rather than persecution, there are no substantial grounds to believe he faces torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected