TB7-17979

TB7-17979

The panel rejected the claimant's ss.96 and 97 claims for lack of credibility: material omissions and contradictions about Shouter membership and attendance in China, a four‑year period without church activity, contradictory documentary evidence (grandmother's letter), absence of travel documents, inconsistent passport evidence and implausible procurement of a consular passport led the panel to find no persuasive evidence of persecution or that the claimant is wanted by Chinese authorities; the sur place claim likewise fails and the claim is manifestly unfounded.

Citation
TB7-17979
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Jacqueline M. Lewis; Interpreter: Y. Qin
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing Before the Refugee Protection Division; Oral Negative Decision Rendered and Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; claim found manifestly unfounded
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claim, Manifestly Unfounded Claim, Persecution on Religious Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claim Manifestly Unfounded Claim +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Jacqueline M. Lewis

Counsel for Claimant

Y. Qin

Interpreter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing Before the Refugee Protection Division; Oral Negative Decision Rendered and Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence that he was a member of the Shouters in China is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's ss.96 and 97 claims for lack of credibility: material omissions and contradictions about Shouter membership and attendance in China, a four‑year period without church activity, contradictory documentary evidence (grandmother's letter), absence of travel documents, inconsistent passport evidence and implausible procurement of a consular passport led the panel to find no persuasive evidence of persecution or that the claimant is wanted by Chinese authorities; the sur place claim likewise fails and the claim is manifestly unfounded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; claim found manifestly unfounded

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim under ss.96 and 97 IRPA rejected
  • Claim declared manifestly unfounded