TB0-08225
Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because documentary and testimonial evidence showed the Russian authorities took steps to investigate and prosecute anti‑Semitic acts, the claimant did not exhaust available remedies, and there was not clear and convincing evidence that adequate protection would not be forthcoming; therefore the claim is rejected under s.96 and ss.97(1) IRPA.
- Citation
- TB0-08225
- Parties
- Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 July 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing
- Outcome
- Claim rejected
- Legal Topics
- State Protection, Persecution Based on Religion/ethnicity, Risk of Torture, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Credibility and Evidentiary Burden
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX
Claimant
Minister
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection
- 2 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96
- 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)
Ratio Decidendi
Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because documentary and testimonial evidence showed the Russian authorities took steps to investigate and prosecute anti‑Semitic acts, the claimant did not exhaust available remedies, and there was not clear and convincing evidence that adequate protection would not be forthcoming; therefore the claim is rejected under s.96 and ss.97(1) IRPA.
Court Disposition
Claim rejected
Orders
- Claim rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment