Search - convention

[19]   The concept of an IFA is integral to the definition of a Convention refugee. ... Bhuiyan was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection:- Ms.  ... The RPD’s conclusion that she was not a Convention refugee and had not established a risk to her life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment resulted from a lack of evidence of any political involvement in the July 2017 attack and Ms.  ...

The assessment by the Minister is predicated upon subsections 3(1), 34(1) and paragraph 38(e) of the Estate Tax Act, SC 1958, c 29, and Article ll(f) of the Schedule to the Canada-United States of America Estate Tax Convention Act, 1961. ... There is no question that, by virtue of paragraph 38(e) of the Estate Tax Act and Article ll(f) of the Schedule to the Canada-United States of America Estate Tax Convention Act, 1961, both of which had been quoted above, the shares in Monarch are deemed to be situated in the Province of Ontario, where Monarch was incorporated, nor was this disputed. ... On that premise it follows that the deceased was not competent to dispose of the shares to any party other than Niagara and accordingly the only rights which the deceased died possessed of under the agreement were rights or causes of action ex delicto surviving to the benefit of the estate of the deceased which rights are deemed to be situate where the rights or causes of action arose and where those rights may be enforced, that is, in this instance, the State of Pennsylvania by virtue of paragraph 38(n) of the Estate Tax Act and Article ll(m) of the Canada-United States of America Estate Tax Convention Act. ...

Law [10] Sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA describe the law as follows: Convention refugee 96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country. Person in need of protection 97(1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. [11] The parties agree that the Court must review the merits of the Decision on a standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 16–17, 25 [Vavilov]). ... I cannot therefore conclude that the Decision was unreasonable. [48] Furthermore, in light of the facts in the case, and given the conclusion that an IFA exists, it was not unreasonable for the RAD to conclude that the applicant was not a Convention refugee. ...

Nature of the matter [1]   This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a single member of the Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division [RPD], which determined the Applicant is neither a Convention Refugee nor a person in need of protection in accordance with section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. ... The determinative issues included credibility, internal flight alternative [IFA], and lack of nexus to a Convention ground. [6]   On the determinative issues, the RPD stated: [12] While the claimant’s testimony was consistent with her narrative contained in her PIF, that narrative is brief. ... I find that there is not a nexus to a Convention ground. [7]   In addition, the RPD stated that even if the Applicant was found to be credible, there was an IFA elsewhere in China, over a thousand kilometers from Hong Kong, where she has ties. ...

(a) in the case of an applicant not described in subsection 112(3), the effect of conferring refugee protection; and [EN BLANC/BLANK] [3]   A Convention refugee is an individual who is outside their country of origin and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of their country’s protection because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion: IRPA s 96. 96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, 96 A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques: (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays; (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country. b) soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner. [4]   A person in need of protection is a person whose removal would subject them personally to a risk to their life, or of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment: IRPA s 97. 97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally 97 (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée: (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture; (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant: (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country, (i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles, (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. ...

Les créances prioritaires sont les suivantes et, lorsqu'elles se rencontrent, elles sont, malgré toute convention contraire, colloquées dans cet ordre:     1.     ...

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 477 Date: 20140516 Docket: IMM-5045-13 Citation: 2014 CF 477 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, May 16, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Martineau BETWEEN: CAROLINA ORTIZ CABRERA WILSON ALEXIS MATEUS GORDILLO NATALIA MATEUS ORTIZ JUAN CAMILO MATEUS ORTIZ LILIANA LAILY MATEUS GORDILLO JORGE ENRIQUE MATEUS PUERTO DORALINA LAYLY GORDILLO DE MATEUS Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1]   This is an application for judicial review of the decision in which the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [the Board] stipulated that the applicants, citizens of Colombia, had neither refugee status under the Convention nor the status of persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 [the Act] because there is the possibility of internal flight alternative [IFA] in their country of nationality. [2]   First, the Board must be convinced that, in accordance with the preponderance of probabilities, the applicants for asylum are not at serious risk of being persecuted in the part of the country where there is a possibility of refuge, and second, that it must not be unreasonable for said applicants to find refuge there, given all of the applicants’ circumstances. ...

The Applicant was granted Convention Refugee status at the age of fifteen in June 2003, and Permanent Resident status in Canada in June 2004. [3]   The Applicant had committed: offences comprised of possession of property obtained by crime on October 29, 2007, contrary to paragraph 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c C-46 [CC]; failure to comply with conditions of undertaking or recognizance contrary to paragraph 145(3)(b) of the CC on June 20, 2007; possession of substances in schedule II for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to paragraph 5(2)(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, on February 13, 2008, and two further convictions for possession of substances included in schedule II for the purpose of trafficking; also for which he was convicted of robbery, contrary to subsection 344(b) of the CC and several failures to comply with conditions of undertaking, contrary to paragraph 145(3)(b) of the CC. [4]   After the 2014 Opinion of the Minister, the Applicant was convicted of failure to stop as requested by a police officer, contrary to subsection 249.1(01) of the CC; also of dangerous driving, contrary to paragraph 249(01)(a); in addition to resisting police, contrary to subsections 129(a) and 129(d). [5]   Furthermore, on March 2, 2018, for crimes committed on February 25, 2018, the Applicant failed to comply with condition or recognizance, contrary to paragraph 145(3)(a) of the CC; also dangerous driving as per paragraphs 249(01)(a) and 249(02)(a) of the CC; the Applicant also failed to stop as requested by a police officer, contrary to subsection 249.1(01) and paragraph 249.1(02)(a) of the CC; also, resisting police, contrary to subsections 129(a) and 129(d) of the CC. [6]   All of which together constituted a danger opinion; for the latest crimes committed by the Applicant was serving in prison when the danger opinion was rendered. [7]   The delegate’s opinion is reasonable under the circumstances as the danger to the public is considered to be more substantial than any risk to the Applicant. [8]   In addition, the Minister’s delegate did consider the best interests of the children in accordance with the jurisprudence thereon. [9]   The evidence in respect to the children, family, spouse and applicant, was considered as is evident for the Minister delegate’s opinion. ...

First, it found that the applicant had failed to establish a fear of persecution on any of the grounds enumerated in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], as Haitian physicians do not constitute a particular social group under the Convention. ...

The applicants state that AZL has friends who are police officers, including a commandant of police, and would therefore be immune from investigation and prosecution. [3] On October 30, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] determined that the applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. ...