Canadian Immigration Law: Case Analysis of Refugee Protection Claim

This case study examines a claim for refugee and protection status in Canada, focusing on the legal framework governing immigration and refugee protection. The claimant, facing persecution and threats in their home country, seeks refuge in Canada. The document analyzes the application of Canadian law, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), and the implications of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. It addresses the claimant's reasons for not initially seeking protection in the US, the relevance of the claimant's experiences, and the application of legal precedents. The analysis considers the claimant's fear of persecution, lack of state protection, and the potential application of exceptions under the IRPA. The case explores the claimant's arguments, supporting evidence, and the importance of providing a safe haven for those facing threats to their lives, highlighting the complexities of refugee claims and the need for compassionate and just immigration policies. The case concludes with a request for refugee and protection status for the claimant and their family.

Immigration Law-Canada

Date:
Address:
Client No: _______________
Claim No: _______________
Dear Sir/ Madam
This letter is in reference to claim of Refugee and protection status in Canada with respect to
Canadian law governed by the government of Canada.
Convention refugees are individuals who are outside their home country in which their
normally reside and they are not able to return to their nation due to a well-founded fear of
persecution based on political opinion, religion, race, nationality or membership in a
particular social group (Olsen and et.al, 2016). These individuals require protection in
Canada because they are subjected to the threat of torture, the risk of their life or any cruel
punishment or treatment.
I want to claim for Refugee and protection status due to increased threat of torture, the risk to
my life and associated individuals. I am attacked by Skinhead organisation on several
occasions. Further, my brother disappeared in a raid, and a few days later he body was found.
Police are also not assisting us due to discrimination. My family had also received threating
notes that like my brother that me and my family will also die if we do not leave.
Canada has an agreement with the US in which the person who is willing to compose a
refugee claim should perform in the initial safe country they reach. By considering this, if an
individual arrives in Canada at the borderland from the US, from this they will not be able to
make a refugee claim within Canada, but this rule is not applied in some cases, for instance, if
an individual has its family living in Canada.
According to this agreement, claimants of refuge must ask for the protection of refugee in the
initial safe country they reach, unless and until they are eligible for an immunity regarding

the Agreement. In accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, United
States is the sole country which is elected as the third safe country by Canada.
For rescue, me and my family travelled to the US and illegally entered in Canada due to
extreme emergency and made a claim for refugee protection stating claims that they have
been persecuted in Hungary due to their being a Roma. Due to the threat of life, we had not
claimed against police and self-government was also ineffective (Garcea, 2017). The primary
reason for not claiming in the US is that their relatives informed them that their stay in the
country is irrelevant. Further, we were already threatened, so we are not in a condition to take
such risk.
In accordance with the Sec 170, Refugee Protection Division can proceed with the decision
of evidence instead of getting bound by technical or legal rules of evidence (Bloom &
Udahemuka, 2014). Further, by considering the case of Thind v. Canada (Minister of
Employment & Immigration) presumption of truth can be applied as applicant swears to the
truth by providing them with the benefit of the doubt. I do not have any nexus with the
criminal background instead of facing severe issues of discrimination. Further, as per
Canadian legal provisions, IRPA provides exception applied when an individual was
Convention refugees, and in my case, there is a nexus between fear and ground contained in
Refugee convention i.e. the threat of torture, the risk of their life or any cruel punishment or
treatment (Barsky, 2017). We do not have availability of state protection as
Alternative option on an internal flight in Budapest is not convenient because they do not
know anyone in Budapest so initiating a new life at that place will be a difficult job as we
need the emotional support of family. So you are kindly requested to provide me and my
family status of Refugee and protection status.

REFERENCES
Barsky, R. F. (2017). Arguing and justifying: assessing the Convention refugees' choice of
moment, motive and host country. Taylor & Francis.
Campbell, J. (2013). Language analysis in the United Kingdom's refugee status determination
system: seeing through policy claims about ‘expert knowledge’. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 36(4), 670-690.
Bloom, A., & Udahemuka, M. (2014). ‘Going through the doors of pain’: asylum seeker and
Convention refugee experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of
Social Sciences Online, 9(2), 70-81.
Garcea, J. (2017). Canada’s refugee protection system. Structural Context of Refugee
Integration in Canada and Germany, 31.
Olsen, C., El-Bialy, R., Mckelvie, M., Rauman, P., & Brunger, F. (2016). “Other” Troubles:
Deconstructing perceptions and changing responses to refugees in Canada. Journal of
immigrant and minority health, 18(1), 58-66.