VA6-01373

VA6-01373

Claimant's evidence failed to establish, on both subjective and objective grounds, a well‑founded fear for a Convention ground and failed to show on a balance of probabilities that return would subject her personally to torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97; material delay, lack of credible fear regarding family planning, choice not to pay a civil judgment despite means, and the civil (non‑political) nature of enforcement detention led to dismissal of the claim.

Citation
VA6-01373
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Decision‑maker: Philip MacAulay; Tribunal Officer: Rex Go
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Reasons and Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), One‑child Policy/family Planning Coercion, Enforcement of Civil Judgments, Detention and Conditions of Custody, Credibility and Delay, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law International Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) One‑child Policy/family Planning Coercion +4 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Philip MacAulay

Decision‑maker

Rex Go

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Reasons and Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA (political opinion / membership of particular social group)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether coercive family planning measures constitute persecution or s.97 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant's evidence failed to establish, on both subjective and objective grounds, a well‑founded fear for a Convention ground and failed to show on a balance of probabilities that return would subject her personally to torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97; material delay, lack of credible fear regarding family planning, choice not to pay a civil judgment despite means, and the civil (non‑political) nature of enforcement detention led to dismissal of the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim dismissed