TA5-08581

TA5-08581

The claimant's account was found not credible due to major inconsistencies about the critical telephone conversation and failure to produce corroborative documentation; coupled with country evidence that a wanted person could not have left China on a genuine passport via Beijing, the Board concluded there was not a well-founded fear of persecution nor a personal risk of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA5-08581
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Kathy Clarke; Refugee Protection Officer: R. Gould; Decision Maker: Diane L. Tinker
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Credibility, Exit Controls, Persecution, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Credibility Exit Controls +2 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Kathy Clarke

Counsel for Claimant

R. Gould

Refugee Protection Officer

Diane L. Tinker

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee for persecution on account of political opinion as a Falun Gong practitioner
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection due to risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's account of arrest, attempted arrest and the telephone conversation with her son

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's account was found not credible due to major inconsistencies about the critical telephone conversation and failure to produce corroborative documentation; coupled with country evidence that a wanted person could not have left China on a genuine passport via Beijing, the Board concluded there was not a well-founded fear of persecution nor a personal risk of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim for refugee protection.