TB6-16142

TB6-16142

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found the claimants not credible due to an unexplained near two‑year delay in claiming refugee protection, their ability to exit China on their own identity despite alleged PSB pursuit, submission of an obsolete and likely inauthentic hukou and inconsistent testimony about personal backgrounds; the cumulative adverse credibility findings undermined all central aspects of the claim and the sur place allegation, leading to rejection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1).

Citation
TB6-16142
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Refugee Claim, Sur Place, Religious Persecution, Document Authenticity, Exit Controls
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Refugee Claim Sur Place Religious Persecution +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible witnesses
  2. 2 Whether delay in claiming undermines subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether claimants could have exited China on their own identity while wanted by authorities

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found the claimants not credible due to an unexplained near two‑year delay in claiming refugee protection, their ability to exit China on their own identity despite alleged PSB pursuit, submission of an obsolete and likely inauthentic hukou and inconsistent testimony about personal backgrounds; the cumulative adverse credibility findings undermined all central aspects of the claim and the sur place allegation, leading to rejection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants are not Convention refugees pursuant to s.96 of IRPA
  • Claimants are not persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1) of IRPA