TB5-10814

TB5-10814

RAD confirmed RPD: principal appellant is not a conscientious objector; conscription and penalties under Ukrainian law are ordinary law of general application and not persecutory; punishment for draft evasion is lawful and not disproportionate or in disregard of accepted international standards; risk from civil war is generalized and lacks nexus to a Convention ground; admitted new evidence did not establish credibility or nexus sufficient to overturn the RPD decision; appeal dismissed.

Citation
TB5-10814
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Daughter Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Conscription, Conscientious Objection, Refugee Protection, Section 97 Risk, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Discretion, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Conscription Conscientious Objection Refugee Protection Section 97 Risk Admissibility of New Evidence +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Daughter Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether appellants would, on balance of probabilities, face risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture on return
  3. 3 Whether principal appellant qualifies as a conscientious objector

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed RPD: principal appellant is not a conscientious objector; conscription and penalties under Ukrainian law are ordinary law of general application and not persecutory; punishment for draft evasion is lawful and not disproportionate or in disregard of accepted international standards; risk from civil war is generalized and lacks nexus to a Convention ground; admitted new evidence did not establish credibility or nexus sufficient to overturn the RPD decision; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Appeal dismissed