TA6-07047

TA6-07047

The claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Israel is unable or unwilling to protect him; given the functioning democratic institutions, available complaint mechanisms, and the lack of adequate factual basis showing state indifference or inability, the presumption of state protection stands and therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA6-07047
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility, Section 97(1) IRPA, Persecution, Torture, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Section 97(1) IRPA +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Israel is unable or unwilling to protect him; given the functioning democratic institutions, available complaint mechanisms, and the lack of adequate factual basis showing state indifference or inability, the presumption of state protection stands and therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.