TB0-17137

TB0-17137

The claimants' refugee claim is rejected because the panel found their core allegations not credible or corroborated, documentary country evidence shows no pattern of persecution of lay house church Christians in Guangdong and indicates family planning enforcement is more likely fines than forced sterilization, and therefore the claimants failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Guangdong, China.

Citation
TB0-17137
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection RPD / Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Religious Persecution, One Child Policy, Forced Sterilization, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Planning Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Religious Persecution One Child Policy +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection RPD / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants genuinely practiced Christianity and were members of an underground house church
  2. 2 Whether Public Security Bureau sought, raided or detained claimants or their co‑religionists
  3. 3 Whether claimants used fraudulent passports/smuggler (Snakehead) to leave China

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee claim is rejected because the panel found their core allegations not credible or corroborated, documentary country evidence shows no pattern of persecution of lay house church Christians in Guangdong and indicates family planning enforcement is more likely fines than forced sterilization, and therefore the claimants failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Guangdong, China.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim of XXXX XXXX XX and XXXX XXXX