TA8-09788

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (rpd Hearing)

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on alleged membership of an underground Christian church in China
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection / at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned
  3. 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