TA8-09788
The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible on central facts (church membership, persecution and flight), concluded the claim was made in bad faith, and determined there are no substantial grounds to believe the claimant would face persecution, torture, or risk to life on return to China.
- Citation
- TA8-09788
- Parties
- Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (rpd Hearing)
- 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, Credibility, Good Faith (sur Place), Religious Persecution, Delay in Making Claim
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXXX XXXXX
Claimant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (rpd Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on alleged membership of an underground Christian church in China
- 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection / at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned
- 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony, PIF and CIC intake statements
Ratio Decidendi
The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible on central facts (church membership, persecution and flight), concluded the claim was made in bad faith, and determined there are no substantial grounds to believe the claimant would face persecution, torture, or risk to life on return to China.
Court Disposition
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Orders
- Claim rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment