MA6-04043

MA6-04043

The panel accepted that the principal claimant and spouse did not demonstrate persecution: the law on reservist duty and punishment for refusal is of general application, the principal's travel and delay undermined credibility and indicated sojourning rather than flight; however, documentary evidence and circumstances raised a reasonable chance of persecution for the daughters as conscientious objectors given impunity of IDF and risk to objectors, so their claims succeed as Convention refugees.

Citation
MA6-04043
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse of Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Daughter (claimant): XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Mixed: two claimants (daughters) allowed as Convention refugees; principal claimant and spouse rejected
Legal Topics
Military Service, Conscientious Objection, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Sojourning, Impunity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Military Service Conscientious Objection Persecution Credibility Assessment Sojourning +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse of Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Daughter (claimant)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to perform military service or conscientious objection by the claimants amounts to persecution under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant and spouse face a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' conduct and travel history undermine credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted that the principal claimant and spouse did not demonstrate persecution: the law on reservist duty and punishment for refusal is of general application, the principal's travel and delay undermined credibility and indicated sojourning rather than flight; however, documentary evidence and circumstances raised a reasonable chance of persecution for the daughters as conscientious objectors given impunity of IDF and risk to objectors, so their claims succeed as Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Mixed: two claimants (daughters) allowed as Convention refugees; principal claimant and spouse rejected

Orders

  • Claims of XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX are allowed; they are determined to be Convention refugees.
  • Claims of XXXXX XXXXX (principal) and XXXXX XXXXX (spouse) are rejected; they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.