MB7-07358

MB7-07358

The claims were rejected because the evidence shows Mrs. XXXX and two children are Israeli permanent residents with rights akin to nationality and thus excluded under Article 1E/IRPA s.98, and Mr. XXXX (stateless) failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm in either of his countries of former habitual residence (US and Palestine); the minor born in the US likewise failed to establish risk in her country of nationality.

Citation
MB7-07358
Parties
Claimant: Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
All refugee claims rejected
Legal Topics
Statelessness, Country of Former Habitual Residence, Exclusion Under Article 1 E/section 98 IRPA, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution, Permanent Residence Rights
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Statelessness Country of Former Habitual Residence Exclusion Under Article 1 E/section 98 IRPA Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is each claimant's country of reference
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution or risk in their country(ies) of reference
  3. 3 Whether Mrs. XXXX and two children are excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA due to rights akin to nationality in Israel

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the evidence shows Mrs. XXXX and two children are Israeli permanent residents with rights akin to nationality and thus excluded under Article 1E/IRPA s.98, and Mr. XXXX (stateless) failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm in either of his countries of former habitual residence (US and Palestine); the minor born in the US likewise failed to establish risk in her country of nationality.

Court Disposition

All refugee claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claims of Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are rejected