TA5-07062

TA5-07062

The pattern of harassment and threats by the PSB, while legitimate cause for anxiety and having adverse health effects, did not amount to persecution because there was no evidence of interrogation, arrest, incarceration, surveillance, restriction of liberty or systemic economic deprivation; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution, no more‑likely‑than‑not risk to life or cruel treatment, and no substantial grounds to believe risk of torture, so the claimants' refugee and protection claims fail.

Citation
TA5-07062
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refugee Protection Division Hearing)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Persons in Need of Protection, Persecution, Torture, Credibility, Identity Documents, State Harassment, Religion (falun Gong), Medical Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Status Persons in Need of Protection Persecution Torture +5 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refugee Protection Division Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Claimants' identity and nationality
  2. 2 Whether harassment by Chinese authorities for daughter's Falun Gong activities amounts to persecution
  3. 3 Whether claimants face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The pattern of harassment and threats by the PSB, while legitimate cause for anxiety and having adverse health effects, did not amount to persecution because there was no evidence of interrogation, arrest, incarceration, surveillance, restriction of liberty or systemic economic deprivation; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution, no more‑likely‑than‑not risk to life or cruel treatment, and no substantial grounds to believe risk of torture, so the claimants' refugee and protection claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claims denied