TB6-15108

TB6-15108

The evidence established only episodic stops, inspections and scrutiny tied to the claimant's occupation and appearance, with no arrests, charges, physical harm or sustained/statewide pattern; objective country evidence shows discretionary, typically administrative penalties for unauthorized exit; therefore the claimant has not shown a sustained or systemic failure of state protection or a serious possibility of persecution on return and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TB6-15108
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Need for Protection, Persecution, Credibility/identity, Returnee Risk, Unauthorized Exit
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Need for Protection Persecution Credibility/identity Returnee Risk +1 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's treatment in Cuba amounts to persecution
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on return for leaving Cuba illegally
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would be denied the ability to work upon return

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established only episodic stops, inspections and scrutiny tied to the claimant's occupation and appearance, with no arrests, charges, physical harm or sustained/statewide pattern; objective country evidence shows discretionary, typically administrative penalties for unauthorized exit; therefore the claimant has not shown a sustained or systemic failure of state protection or a serious possibility of persecution on return and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection refused
  • No finding of risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or danger of torture; removal/back-end process may proceed