2020 RLLR 54

2020 RLLR 54

The panel accepted that the principal claimant, perceived as Roma, was mistreated by police in detention and that state protection was unlikely to be available to him, which establishes a serious possibility of persecution; given his status and targeting, his family members who are dependent or associated with him are also Convention refugees despite adverse credibility findings on some allegations by the wife.

Citation
2020 RLLR 54
Parties
Principal Claimant: [XXX] (principal claimant); Spouse: [XXX] (wife); Minor Claimant: [XXX] (minor claimant); Relative: [XXX] (wife's mother)
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Convention Refugee Claim Redetermination / Redetermination by Refugee Protection Division Following Judicial Review Order by Hughes J.
Outcome
Claims accepted: principal claimant found to be a Convention refugee; minor claimant, wife, and wife's mother accepted as Convention refugees by virtue of family membership and dependency
Legal Topics
Persecution, State Protection, Credibility Findings, Family Membership/derivative Status, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Detention and Police Misconduct, Access to Education
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Persecution State Protection Credibility Findings Family Membership/derivative Status Ethnic Discrimination (roma) +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX] (principal claimant)

Principal Claimant

[XXX] (wife)

Spouse

[XXX] (minor claimant)

Minor Claimant

[XXX] (wife's mother)

Relative

Procedural Posture

Convention Refugee Claim Redetermination / Redetermination by Refugee Protection Division Following Judicial Review Order by Hughes J.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant was persecuted by police and whether state protection is available
  3. 3 Whether the wife's and other family members' evidence is credible and establishes a risk of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted that the principal claimant, perceived as Roma, was mistreated by police in detention and that state protection was unlikely to be available to him, which establishes a serious possibility of persecution; given his status and targeting, his family members who are dependent or associated with him are also Convention refugees despite adverse credibility findings on some allegations by the wife.

Court Disposition

Claims accepted: principal claimant found to be a Convention refugee; minor claimant, wife, and wife's mother accepted as Convention refugees by virtue of family membership and dependency

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the claims are accepted as those of Convention refugees (Decision dated July 21, 2020)