TA9-00035

TA9-00035

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to establish his personal identity and citizenship on the balance of probabilities, and, on the merits, the evidence showed police harassment of illegal residents in Greece amounts to harassment or legitimate enforcement rather than persecution; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-00035
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision by RPD
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Identity, Statelessness, Country of Former Habitual Residence, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries, Burden of Proof, Convention Refugee Status, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Nationality and Citizenship Identity Statelessness Country of Former Habitual Residence Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries Burden of Proof +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision by RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established his personal identity
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to establish his personal identity and citizenship on the balance of probabilities, and, on the merits, the evidence showed police harassment of illegal residents in Greece amounts to harassment or legitimate enforcement rather than persecution; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA