VB1-03180

VB1-03180

Female claimant accepted as a Convention refugee because her firmly held opposition to state family planning constitutes political opinion and the cumulative effect of compulsory IUD insertion, regular examinations and monitoring—together with lack of effective state protection and significant penalties affecting her children—amounts to persecution; male claimant rejected because the risk to him is emotional/supportive and there is no objective evidence of forcible sterilization of men or personal risk to life or torture.

Citation
VB1-03180
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXX; Claimant (female): XXXX XXXX; Respondent (intervenor): Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Female claimant found to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; male claimant's claim rejected as neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Family Planning Policy, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Persecution Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Family Planning Policy Gender Based Persecution State Protection Persecution Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

Minister of Public Safety

Respondent (intervenor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the female claimant faces a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion opposing China's family planning policy
  2. 2 Whether the male claimant faces a well-founded fear of persecution or is a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available in China

Ratio Decidendi

Female claimant accepted as a Convention refugee because her firmly held opposition to state family planning constitutes political opinion and the cumulative effect of compulsory IUD insertion, regular examinations and monitoring—together with lack of effective state protection and significant penalties affecting her children—amounts to persecution; male claimant rejected because the risk to him is emotional/supportive and there is no objective evidence of forcible sterilization of men or personal risk to life or torture.

Court Disposition

Female claimant found to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; male claimant's claim rejected as neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Female claimant's refugee claim accepted and Convention refugee status granted pursuant to s.96 IRPA.
  • Male claimant's refugee claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.