TA7-15511

TA7-15511

Although the female claimant was largely credible, the panel found the presumption of state protection in Israel unrebutted because the claimants did not attempt or provide clear and convincing evidence that police, shelters or the judicial system would be unable or unwilling to protect them; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or personal risk to life, cruel treatment or torture and the claims are rejected under ss. 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA7-15511
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Particular Social Group, Forced Marriage, Honor Killing, Burden of Proof, Women Refugees
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Gender Based Persecution State Protection Particular Social Group Forced Marriage Honor Killing +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the state of Israel can provide effective protection
  3. 3 Whether claimants exhausted domestic remedies before fleeing

Ratio Decidendi

Although the female claimant was largely credible, the panel found the presumption of state protection in Israel unrebutted because the claimants did not attempt or provide clear and convincing evidence that police, shelters or the judicial system would be unable or unwilling to protect them; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or personal risk to life, cruel treatment or torture and the claims are rejected under ss. 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claims rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act