TB2-07307

TB2-07307

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants' evidence not credible due to material omissions, inconsistent testimony, implausibility of evading national exit controls (Golden Shield) while allegedly pursued, and failure to seek asylum in the U.S.; even if pursued, evidence pointed to prosecution for unlawful demonstrations rather than persecution; accordingly claimants did not meet requirements of ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA and their claims were rejected.

Citation
TB2-07307
Parties
Claimant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Claimant Son: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA sections 96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Credibility, Persecution Vs. Prosecution, Recusal and Bias, Safe Third Country, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Persecution Vs. Prosecution Recusal and Bias Safe Third Country Burden of Proof

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants credible
  2. 2 Whether risk on return is persecution or lawful prosecution
  3. 3 Allegation of ongoing pursuit by Public Security Bureau (PSB) and supporting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants' evidence not credible due to material omissions, inconsistent testimony, implausibility of evading national exit controls (Golden Shield) while allegedly pursued, and failure to seek asylum in the U.S.; even if pursued, evidence pointed to prosecution for unlawful demonstrations rather than persecution; accordingly claimants did not meet requirements of ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA and their claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA sections 96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected.