TA9-03225

TA9-03225

On the evidence, the panel concluded there was insufficient, location-specific and persuasive evidence that the male claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Fujian for practising his faith or would be subjected to forced sterilization under the One-Child Policy, and the minor claimant, as a U.S. citizen, would not face persecution in the United States; therefore both claims fail.

Citation
TA9-03225
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX); Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing and Post Hearing Written Submissions
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects both claimants' claims
Legal Topics
Freedom of Religion, Religious Persecution, Family Planning/one Child Policy, Forced Sterilization, Protection Elsewhere, Safe Third Country, Credibility/identity, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Freedom of Religion Religious Persecution Family Planning/one Child Policy Forced Sterilization Protection Elsewhere +3 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX)

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing and Post Hearing Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the male claimant faces persecution for practising Christianity in Fujian, China
  3. 3 Whether the male claimant faces a risk of forced sterilization under China’s One-Child Policy

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the panel concluded there was insufficient, location-specific and persuasive evidence that the male claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Fujian for practising his faith or would be subjected to forced sterilization under the One-Child Policy, and the minor claimant, as a U.S. citizen, would not face persecution in the United States; therefore both claims fail.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects both claimants' claims

Orders

  • The minor claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; claim rejected.
  • The male claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; claim rejected.