TB2-11625

TB2-11625

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants had previously held permanent resident status in Trinidad with rights akin to nationals; they lost or failed to maintain that status while engaging in 'asylum shopping' rather than fleeing persecution; they failed to prove individualized risk in Trinidad; documentary and jurisprudential evidence showed family‑planning measures in Guangdong are enforced primarily by fines and not forced sterilization since 2012 and that the principal claimant's sur place conversion lacked credibility; therefore the three adult claimants are excluded under Article 1E and none of the five claimants established refugee protection or need for...

Citation
TB2-11625
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Daughter: XXXX XXXX; Son: XXXX XXXX; Son (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision and Reasons (rpd)
Outcome
All refugee claims rejected; three adult claimants excluded under Article 1E; two Trinidad‑born claimants found to be citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and their refugee claims rejected.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Determination, Sur Place Claim (conversion), Family Planning Policy, Credibility Assessment, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Determination Sur Place Claim (conversion) Family Planning Policy Credibility Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Daughter

XXXX XXXX

Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision and Reasons (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether three adult claimants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E due to status in Trinidad and Tobago
  3. 3 Whether claimants face persecution on return to China because of family planning enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants had previously held permanent resident status in Trinidad with rights akin to nationals; they lost or failed to maintain that status while engaging in 'asylum shopping' rather than fleeing persecution; they failed to prove individualized risk in Trinidad; documentary and jurisprudential evidence showed family‑planning measures in Guangdong are enforced primarily by fines and not forced sterilization since 2012 and that the principal claimant's sur place conversion lacked credibility; therefore the three adult claimants are excluded under Article 1E and none of the five claimants established refugee protection or need for...

Court Disposition

All refugee claims rejected; three adult claimants excluded under Article 1E; two Trinidad‑born claimants found to be citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and their refugee claims rejected.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of all five claimants are dismissed.
  • Three adult claimants (principal claimant, spouse, daughter) are excluded pursuant to Article 1E and s.98 IRPA; the two claimants born in Trinidad are found to be Trinidad and Tobago citizens and their claims are rejected.