TA4-05616

TA4-05616

The panel dismissed the claims because the claimants failed to meet the onus to establish a well-founded fear linked to a Convention ground and failed to show that state protection in Pakistan would be inadequate; isolated, poorly evidenced incidents and the husband’s age and frailty render him an unlikely target and the claims relate primarily to family reunification and medical needs, not persecution within the Convention definition.

Citation
TA4-05616
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: J. Kivlichan; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded; Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Religious Discrimination, Particular Social Group, Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations, Medical/health Issues
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee State Protection Religious Discrimination Particular Social Group +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

J. Kivlichan

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded; Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Pakistan is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The panel dismissed the claims because the claimants failed to meet the onus to establish a well-founded fear linked to a Convention ground and failed to show that state protection in Pakistan would be inadequate; isolated, poorly evidenced incidents and the husband’s age and frailty render him an unlikely target and the claims relate primarily to family reunification and medical needs, not persecution within the Convention definition.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Claim denied
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA