TA7-01422

TA7-01422

The claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution: his church was small (about eleven members), he held no leadership role, documentary sources indicate authorities concentrate on leaders and larger or organized groups, and credible alternatives and regional enforcement patterns reduce the risk; thus he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA7-01422
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Religion, Religious Persecution, House Church, Risk Assessment, Credibility, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Freedom of Religion Religious Persecution House Church Risk Assessment Credibility +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant practiced Christianity as a member of a house church in China
  2. 2 Whether claimant continues to practice Christianity in Canada
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on return to China

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution: his church was small (about eleven members), he held no leadership role, documentary sources indicate authorities concentrate on leaders and larger or organized groups, and credible alternatives and regional enforcement patterns reduce the risk; thus he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.