VA6-00942

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because there was no clear and convincing evidence that Israeli authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect him and it was not objectively unreasonable for him to have sought their protection; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation: VA6-00942
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 14 January 2008
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome: Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics: Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility, Risk to Life, Religion, Discrimination
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Credibility Risk to Life +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
3 Whether state protection in Israel was available and it was objectively unreasonable not to seek it

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

Claim denied; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.