TB7-06538

TB7-06538

The Appellant failed to demonstrate genuine conscientious objections grounded in religion, philosophy or ethics and provided no documentary evidence of a disqualifying psychological condition; fear of blood is insufficient to establish conscientious objector status and there is no demonstrated risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-06538
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Conscientious Objection, Military Conscription, Credibility Assessment, Nexus to Refugee Grounds, Risk of Persecution, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Conscientious Objection Military Conscription Credibility Assessment Nexus to Refugee Grounds Risk of Persecution +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee under section 97 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant is a person in need of protection under section 96 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant qualifies as a conscientious objector

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to demonstrate genuine conscientious objections grounded in religion, philosophy or ethics and provided no documentary evidence of a disqualifying psychological condition; fear of blood is insufficient to establish conscientious objector status and there is no demonstrated risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD dated March 13, 2017.
  • Appeal dismissed.