Canada Case Law

2024 RLLR 19

Court

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations

On the balance of probabilities the claimant established birth in Tibet and lack of Indian citizenship rights, making China the sole country of reference; claimant credibly demonstrated nexus to Convention grounds (Tibetan ethnicity, Buddhist religion, political opinion) and, based on credible objective country evidence, showed state protection in China would be unavailable and no internal flight alternative exists; therefore the claimant is a Convention refugee.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• State protection
• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility assessment
• Nexus to convention grounds

Read case analysis

2023 RLLR 260

Court

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations

On the balance of probabilities the claimants are stateless Palestinians with credible testimony corroborated by documentation and country evidence showing systemic, state‑linked discrimination in Lebanon that gives rise to a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of nationality; they cannot obtain Lebanese or other citizenship, cannot return to their CFHRs, and have no state protection or viable internal flight alternative, therefore they meet the definition of Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Well-founded fear of persecution
• Country of former habitual residence
• State protection
• Internal flight alternative
• Nexus to convention ground

Read case analysis

Atem v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of continued immigration detention, finding removal to South Sudan remained a realistic possibility and the detention order reasonable.

• Immigration detention
• Possibility test
• Immigration nexus
• Statelessness
• Removal/deportation
• Section 58 irpa

Read case analysis

MC2-06189

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Respondent has an automatic legal right to Lebanese citizenship through his Lebanese‑born parents, he failed to prove a significant impediment or that he made reasonable unsuccessful efforts to obtain that citizenship (he did not pursue available embassy or documentary avenues), therefore Lebanon is a country of reference and because he does not claim persecution there the refugee claim fails; appeal allowed and decision substituted that he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Country of reference
• Citizenship acquisition
• Convention refugee determination
• Person in need of protection
• Standard of review
• Procedural rules

Read case analysis

TC2-07428

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Appeal dismissed because, on the balance of probabilities and after weighing all documentary and testimonial evidence against significant credibility contradictions and failures to produce reasonably available corroboration, the appellant did not establish his personal and national identity and therefore failed to meet the burden required for refugee protection.

Source excerpt

• Identity
• Burden of proof
• Credibility assessment
• Statelessness
• Ethnic discrimination (afro-mauritanians)

Read case analysis

MC1-04814

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeals are dismissed because the Appellants did not establish a material breach of procedural fairness nor that former counsel's negligence caused a miscarriage of justice, Rwanda is a valid country of reference, and the Appellants failed to prove a forward‑looking risk of persecution or s97 harm in Kenya sufficient to meet the refugee or protection definitions.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Inadequate representation
• New evidence admissibility
• Country of reference
• Risk of persecution
• S96 and s97 harm

Read case analysis

TC1-08952

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Appeal dismissed because the Principal and Associate Appellants can acquire Jamaican citizenship and failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to overcome impediments to obtaining it, the children lack a nexus to a Convention ground and thus are not Convention refugees, and the presumption of state protection in the Bahamas was not rebutted on the evidence; only certain medical reports were admissible as new evidence and other proffered materials were irrelevant or speculative.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee status
• State protection (section 97)
• Country of nationality/country of reference
• Admissibility of new evidence (rad)
• Particular social group
• Procedural fairness for minors

Read case analysis

TC1-04325

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Appellant is an Indian citizen by birth through his mother and can access Indian citizenship; he failed to establish a significant impediment or to make reasonable efforts to overcome any impediment as required by Tretsetsang; therefore India is the country of reference and there is no serious possibility of persecution or personal risk in India under IRPA ss.96-97, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Country of reference
• Citizenship by birth and descent
• Access to state protection
• Control test (williams)
• Tretsetsang impediment and efforts test
• Convention refugee status

Read case analysis

VC0-01017

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant is a full Jordanian citizen with a valid passport and national identity number, there is no credible evidence that Jordan will revoke his citizenship, no serious possibility that Hamas or Fatah can or will locate and forcibly recruit or target him in Jordan, and any discrimination he may face does not cumulatively amount to persecution.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Person in need of protection
• Citizenship revocation
• Forced recruitment
• Persecution
• Cumulative discrimination

Read case analysis

TB9-34368

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found Article 1E did not apply because the appellant is a dual citizen of Italy and Bangladesh, but dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, credible evidence of persecution in Italy, failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground or a mafia connection, and failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Italy; therefore his claim fails and there is no need to assess Bangladesh.

Source excerpt

• Article 1e exclusion
• Credibility assessment
• State protection
• Dual nationality
• Admission of new evidence

Read case analysis