TB1-06229

TB1-06229

The panel found the claimants’ account not credible on key points (conversion narrative, omissions about an alleged arrest warrant, implausible ongoing PSB pursuit and neighbour communications), and concluded documentary evidence showed that persecution of house churches in Shandong is not general and that the claimants would likely be able to practice religion on return; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor on-balance risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim is rejected.

Citation
TB1-06229
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Religious Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Country Condition Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Religious Persecution Credibility Assessment Country Condition Analysis

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants’ claimed conversion and membership in an illegal house church in China is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants’ account not credible on key points (conversion narrative, omissions about an alleged arrest warrant, implausible ongoing PSB pursuit and neighbour communications), and concluded documentary evidence showed that persecution of house churches in Shandong is not general and that the claimants would likely be able to practice religion on return; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor on-balance risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.