TA4-01429

TA4-01429

Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption that the United States provides effective state protection; he did not establish genuine conscientious objector status (selective objection to Iraq), did not show that military action in Iraq met the high threshold of being condemned by the international community so as to render punishment persecutory, and any punishment for desertion would be lawful, non-discriminatory sanctions under the UCMJ and not cruel or unusual treatment.

Citation
TA4-01429
Parties
Principal Claimant: J.H.; Claimant (spouse): N.T.N.; Minor Claimant: L.L.N.H.; Respondent (minister's Counsel): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
claims for refugee protection dismissed
Legal Topics
Conscientious Objection, Desertion, State Protection, Persecution, Refugee Status, Court Martial, Paragraph 171 Handbook, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Military Law International Humanitarian Law Administrative Law Human Rights Conscientious Objection Desertion +6 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.H.

Principal Claimant

N.T.N.

Claimant (spouse)

L.L.N.H.

Minor Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister's Counsel)

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether claimant rebutted presumption that US will protect him
  2. 2 whether claimant is a Convention refugee for political opinion/religion/particular social group (conscientious objector)
  3. 3 whether the military action in Iraq is condemned by the international community (Handbook para 171)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption that the United States provides effective state protection; he did not establish genuine conscientious objector status (selective objection to Iraq), did not show that military action in Iraq met the high threshold of being condemned by the international community so as to render punishment persecutory, and any punishment for desertion would be lawful, non-discriminatory sanctions under the UCMJ and not cruel or unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

claims for refugee protection dismissed

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection by J.H., N.T.N. and L.L.N.H. are rejected
  • Reasons for decision issued March 16, 2005