TB1-15546

TB1-15546

Principal claimant's fear of forced birth control was not credible and, given documentary evidence and her status as a long‑term overseas returnee of advanced child‑bearing age, any adverse state action would at worst be social maintenance fees (economic sanctions) which do not constitute persecution; secondary claimants are victims of generalized criminality in Honduras without nexus to a Convention ground and face a generalized rather than personalized risk; minor claimant has no objective basis for fear in the USA and adequate state protection exists; therefore none qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-15546
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Male Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Female Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (final Decision)
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of all claimants
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Nexus to Convention Grounds, Generalized Risk, Family Planning Policy/forced Birth Control, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Extortion and Gang Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Nexus to Convention Grounds Generalized Risk Family Planning Policy/forced Birth Control +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Male Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Female Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA based on risk of involuntary birth control on return to China
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) (risk to life, risk of torture, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether the secondary claimants have nexus to a Convention ground for persecution or alternatively face a personalized risk under s.97 or only a generalized risk in Honduras

Ratio Decidendi

Principal claimant's fear of forced birth control was not credible and, given documentary evidence and her status as a long‑term overseas returnee of advanced child‑bearing age, any adverse state action would at worst be social maintenance fees (economic sanctions) which do not constitute persecution; secondary claimants are victims of generalized criminality in Honduras without nexus to a Convention ground and face a generalized rather than personalized risk; minor claimant has no objective basis for fear in the USA and adequate state protection exists; therefore none qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of all claimants

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal, secondary and minor claimants; no refugee protection or person in need of protection status granted