TA5-10204

TA5-10204

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Montenegro can protect its citizens; documentary evidence and country conditions showed Montenegro has functioning institutions, an amnesty for draft evasion and abolished compulsory service in 2006, and the claimant did not provide clear and convincing evidence of inability to obtain state protection, so the claim for refugee protection fails.

Citation
TA5-10204
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Draft Evasion, Right to Return, Country of Reference
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights State Protection Military Service Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Draft Evasion +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant provided credible and trustworthy evidence of the material aspects of his claim
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Montenegro can protect its citizens; documentary evidence and country conditions showed Montenegro has functioning institutions, an amnesty for draft evasion and abolished compulsory service in 2006, and the claimant did not provide clear and convincing evidence of inability to obtain state protection, so the claim for refugee protection fails.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim rejected