MA5-00689

MA5-00689

The claimant failed to establish that Turkish conscription law or its application is persecutory or connected to a Convention ground, failed to demonstrate a real risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and his delay in claiming undermined his subjective fear; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA5-00689
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Galia Rouleau-Dumont; Panel Member: Diane Fecteau
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (section 96 and 97 Irpa) / Decision on Claim After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Conscientious Objection, Military Conscription, Draft Evasion, Persecution, Torture, Risk of Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Credibility and Delay
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law International Human Rights Conscientious Objection Military Conscription Draft Evasion Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Galia Rouleau-Dumont

Refugee Protection Officer

Diane Fecteau

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (section 96 and 97 Irpa) / Decision on Claim After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on conscientious objection and political opinion
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned
  3. 3 Whether Turkish military conscription law or its application is persecutory or a law of general application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that Turkish conscription law or its application is persecutory or connected to a Convention ground, failed to demonstrate a real risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and his delay in claiming undermined his subjective fear; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected