MB3-04364

MB3-04364

On the balance of evidence the panel concluded the claimant suffered discrimination rather than persecution and therefore did not meet the definitions of a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA; the claim was rejected.

Citation
MB3-04364
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution Vs. Discrimination, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution Vs. Discrimination Credibility Assessment

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of evidence the panel concluded the claimant suffered discrimination rather than persecution and therefore did not meet the definitions of a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA; the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected