TB2-14617

TB2-14617

On the evidence and jurisprudence the panel found on the balance of probabilities that the claimants would not face forced sterilization or forced IUD insertion if returned to China, that China’s family‑planning law is a law of general application and fines (not forcible measures) are the likely consequence for any out‑of‑plan birth, and therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB2-14617
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant (wife): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (rpd Reasons)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Family Planning Policy, Forced Sterilization, IUD Insertion, Credibility, Country Conditions (china)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Forced Sterilization IUD Insertion +2 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (rpd Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether return to China poses a risk of forced sterilization or forced IUD insertion
  3. 3 Effect of China’s two‑child policy and provincial enforcement practices (Guangdong/Guangzhou)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and jurisprudence the panel found on the balance of probabilities that the claimants would not face forced sterilization or forced IUD insertion if returned to China, that China’s family‑planning law is a law of general application and fines (not forcible measures) are the likely consequence for any out‑of‑plan birth, and therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed
  • No refugee protection or protection under subsection 97(1) granted