TB0-06040

TB0-06040

The panel preferred contemporaneous and authoritative documentary evidence over the claimant's testimony, found the summons submitted by the claimant to be non-genuine and inconsistent with PRC law and other reliable documents, found significant omissions and implausible precautions undermining credibility, and on a balance of probabilities concluded the claimant did not send the material and therefore has no well‑founded fear of persecution; claim rejected.

Citation
TB0-06040
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee) / Hearing and Decision Rendered (oral Decision June 18, 2012; Written Reasons July 23, 2012)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found neither to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility Findings, Document Genuineness, Risk of Persecution, Country Conditions (china), Religious Practice (falun Gong), Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Credibility Findings Document Genuineness Risk of Persecution Country Conditions (china) +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXX)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee) / Hearing and Decision Rendered (oral Decision June 18, 2012; Written Reasons July 23, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the summons submitted by the claimant is genuine
  3. 3 Whether the claimant sent Falun Gong material to China and faces a risk as a result

Ratio Decidendi

The panel preferred contemporaneous and authoritative documentary evidence over the claimant's testimony, found the summons submitted by the claimant to be non-genuine and inconsistent with PRC law and other reliable documents, found significant omissions and implausible precautions undermining credibility, and on a balance of probabilities concluded the claimant did not send the material and therefore has no well‑founded fear of persecution; claim rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found neither to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.