TB3-09264

TB3-09264

Claimant established on a balance of probabilities that he would be persecuted in Syria on account of his perceived political opinion if returned: exclusion under Article 1F(a) did not apply because military service was mandatory, pre‑conflict, and he had no evidence of participation in crimes; state protection and internal flight alternative are unavailable given the civil war and control by regime or militant groups; therefore claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA.

Citation
TB3-09264
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada); Member: H. Pearson; Interpreter: S. Ossaile
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claim accepted; claimant found to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persecution, Exclusion (article 1 F), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Military Conscription, Perceived Political Opinion, Non Refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Persecution Exclusion (article 1 F) State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Military Conscription +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 XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

H. Pearson

Member

S. Ossaile

Interpreter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant meets definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is excluded under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention for alleged war crimes
  3. 3 Whether claimant has nexus to a Convention ground (perceived political opinion)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant established on a balance of probabilities that he would be persecuted in Syria on account of his perceived political opinion if returned: exclusion under Article 1F(a) did not apply because military service was mandatory, pre‑conflict, and he had no evidence of participation in crimes; state protection and internal flight alternative are unavailable given the civil war and control by regime or militant groups; therefore claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim accepted; claimant found to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act