MB1-05111

MB1-05111

The panel found the claimant was subjected to isolated attacks by extremist individuals but that those acts, in the context of Latvia's laws, societal position and available state protection, do not amount to persecution for a Convention ground; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB1-05111
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution, State Protection, Ethnic Discrimination, Political Opinion, Hate Crimes
Source Language
English

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 and subsection 97(1) IRPA for persecution based on political opinion and/or ethnicity
  2. 2 Whether attacks by extremist nationalists constitute persecution
  3. 3 Whether the Latvian state offers adequate protection or whether state acquiescence exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant was subjected to isolated attacks by extremist individuals but that those acts, in the context of Latvia's laws, societal position and available state protection, do not amount to persecution for a Convention ground; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection