TA4-06833

TA4-06833

The panel found the claimant not credible on the central allegations of targeted harassment and ongoing threat by religious extremists, concluded the facts did not engage a Convention ground, determined Israel was able and willing to provide state protection and that an internal flight alternative existed (Haifa); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA4-06833
Parties
Claimant (designated Representative): XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor: XXXXX XXXXX; Mother: XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing De Novo Decision
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Harassment, Religious Groups, Political Opinion, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Torture, Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights State Protection Harassment Religious Groups Political Opinion Internal Flight Alternative +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (designated Representative)

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor

XXXXX XXXXX

Mother

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing De Novo Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Israel is unavailable or ineffective
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible on the central allegations of targeted harassment and ongoing threat by religious extremists, concluded the facts did not engage a Convention ground, determined Israel was able and willing to provide state protection and that an internal flight alternative existed (Haifa); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected; no protection or non‑refoulement obligation established