MB1-04299

MB1-04299

The Tribunal rejected the claim because key elements of the claimants' narrative lacked credibility and there was insufficient objective evidence of a real risk of persecution: the published articles did not contravene blasphemy law or provoke attacks on publishers, the alleged threatening incidents were not credibly connected to persecution, there was no proof of hiding or military disciplinary action, and country information did not show targeted risk to the claimants; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MB1-04299
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor Son): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Political Opinion, Blasphemy Law, State Protection, Treason, Media
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Religious Freedom Military Service Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +7 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor Son)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants face persecution for political opinion expressed in media articles

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal rejected the claim because key elements of the claimants' narrative lacked credibility and there was insufficient objective evidence of a real risk of persecution: the published articles did not contravene blasphemy law or provoke attacks on publishers, the alleged threatening incidents were not credibly connected to persecution, there was no proof of hiding or military disciplinary action, and country information did not show targeted risk to the claimants; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA.