Federal Court

Immigration and Citizenship

Refugee protection

Elements of protected refugee status

Claimants’ application for refugee protection denied in absence of well-founded fear of persecution

Refugee claimants were father, mother, and three children who were stateless Palestinians holding Lebanese travel documents. Father and children had been born in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia while mother had been born in United Arab Emirates before moving to Saudi Arabia when she married father. After father lost his job in Saudi Arabia and had to leave, claimants went to United States before coming to Canada. Claimants unsuccessfully applied for refugee protection. Claimants brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Finding of Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of Immigration and Refugee Board that claimants had not established well-founded fear of persecution in Saudi Arabia, and that they were not persons in need of protection, was reasonable. Father’s evidence was that he had no problems in Saudi Arabia other than losing his job. RPD was not required to consider whether claimants would be at risk in Lebanon. In absence of well-founded fear of persecution, fact that claimants alleged they could not return to Saudi Arabia was not, alone, sufficient to permit them to meet Convention definition.

Chehade v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 790, 2017 FC 282, Cecily Y. Strickland J. (F.C.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?