TA0-12393

TA0-12393

On the balance of probabilities the claimant retained citizenship of Serbia and Montenegro based on valid passports and supporting documentary evidence; as a citizen and member of the majority group she did not face a personalized risk linked to a Convention ground and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; Guideline 7 did not infringe fairness and was properly applied.

Citation
TA0-12393
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: S. Golden; Member: N.G. Stanwick
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision (de Novo Hearing After Adjournment)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Citizenship, Order of Questioning, Fair Hearing, IRB Guideline 7
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Citizenship Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Citizenship +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

S. Golden

Refugee Protection Officer

N.G. Stanwick

Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision (de Novo Hearing After Adjournment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a citizen of Serbia and Montenegro
  3. 3 Whether IRB Guideline 7 order of questioning violates natural justice/fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant retained citizenship of Serbia and Montenegro based on valid passports and supporting documentary evidence; as a citizen and member of the majority group she did not face a personalized risk linked to a Convention ground and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; Guideline 7 did not infringe fairness and was properly applied.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected