TB7-11605

TB7-11605

On the evidence the Panel concluded there was no serious possibility that the Claimants would be persecuted for CHP political activity or on account of Kurdish or Alevi identity; the police interviews did not amount to persecution, there was no established nexus to a Convention ground, credibility was negatively affected by the Claimants' unimpeded airport exit, and expert psychological evidence was given little weight; therefore the Claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-11605
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Female Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Child Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant(s): Cemal Acikgoz; Respondent: Minister of Immigration; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision on the Merits (first Instance)
Outcome
Claims rejected; Claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Risk Assessment, Nexus to Protected Ground, Exclusion Assessment, Credibility, Weight of Expert Evidence, Internal Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Risk Assessment Nexus to Protected Ground Exclusion Assessment Credibility +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Female Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Child Claimant

Cemal Acikgoz

Counsel for Claimant(s)

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision on the Merits (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus between alleged harm and a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether exclusion from protection applies due to military service

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Panel concluded there was no serious possibility that the Claimants would be persecuted for CHP political activity or on account of Kurdish or Alevi identity; the police interviews did not amount to persecution, there was no established nexus to a Convention ground, credibility was negatively affected by the Claimants' unimpeded airport exit, and expert psychological evidence was given little weight; therefore the Claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; Claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims rejected
  • No protection granted