TA6-15375

TA6-15375

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they did not demonstrate on clear and convincing evidence that Israeli authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect them and it would not have been objectively unreasonable to seek police protection; consequently they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of IRPA.

Citation
TA6-15375
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Religion, Nationality, Particular Social Group, Family, Interfaith Marriage, Honour Killings, Harassment, Onus to Seek State Protection, Well Founded Fear, Negative Decision, Israel
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law State Protection Religion Nationality Particular Social Group Family Interfaith Marriage +6 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are members of a particular social group (mixed/interfaith marriage) and thereby at risk
  3. 3 Whether the state of Israel would be unwilling or unable to protect the claimants (state protection)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they did not demonstrate on clear and convincing evidence that Israeli authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect them and it would not have been objectively unreasonable to seek police protection; consequently they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX and minor XXXXX XXXXX are dismissed; no protection granted.