TA3-00642

TA3-00642

Because the claimant's feared treatment arises from enforcement of a general law applicable to the entire population, lacks evidence of differential treatment on a Convention ground, and the penalties are not shown to be disproportionate or to meet the threshold of torture or cruel and unusual punishment, there is no serious possibility of persecution or protected risk; therefore the refugee claim fails.

Citation
TA3-00642
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Representative for Claimant: REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER; Respondent Counsel: MINISTER'S COUNSEL
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Decision Issued)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Persecution, Military Service, Law of General Application, Risk to Life, Torture, Cruel or Unusual Treatment or Punishment, State Enforcement of Law
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Persecution Military Service Law of General Application Risk to Life +3 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER

Representative for Claimant

MINISTER'S COUNSEL

Respondent Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of compulsory military service in Chile against the claimant constitutes persecution
  2. 2 Whether penalty for failing to register for military service amounts to risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would be treated differently on a Convention ground such that persecution is established

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant's feared treatment arises from enforcement of a general law applicable to the entire population, lacks evidence of differential treatment on a Convention ground, and the penalties are not shown to be disproportionate or to meet the threshold of torture or cruel and unusual punishment, there is no serious possibility of persecution or protected risk; therefore the refugee claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim of XXXXX XXXXX for refugee protection