VB1-01042

VB1-01042

The panel rejected the claims because the adjudicator made an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities (notably lack of specific medical documentation of the alleged forced abortion, implausible snakehead conduct, failure to seek asylum in the United States and failure to produce travel documents), and on that basis concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1), and there are no substantial grounds to believe removal would result in torture.

Citation
VB1-01042
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (rpd Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims of XXXXXXXXX and XXXXX dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Forced Abortion, Forced Sterilization, Credibility Assessment, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Section 96 Convention Refugee, Section 97 Person in Need of Protection, Country Documentation, Medical Records/corroboration
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Public Health/family Planning Policy Forced Abortion Forced Sterilization Credibility Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX

Associated Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (rpd Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' account of forced abortion and threat of sterilization

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the adjudicator made an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities (notably lack of specific medical documentation of the alleged forced abortion, implausible snakehead conduct, failure to seek asylum in the United States and failure to produce travel documents), and on that basis concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1), and there are no substantial grounds to believe removal would result in torture.

Court Disposition

Claims of XXXXXXXXX and XXXXX dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim of XXXXXXXXX and XXXXX dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act