TA4-14946

TA4-14946

Because the claimants failed to establish their identity or country of reference and proffered documents (hukou, RIC, travel documents) were found unreliable or unavailable, the claimants did not discharge the onus to show a serious possibility of persecution or a more-likely-than-not risk of torture/cruel treatment; therefore their refugee protection claims were rejected.

Citation
TA4-14946
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimants' Counsel: Carla Sturdy; Respondent (minister): Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Negative Decision (rpd Determination Dated November 17, 2006)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Identity and Credibility, Document Authenticity (hukou, RIC, Travel Documents), Fraudulent Documents and Human Smuggling, Family Planning Policy, Persecution on Political Opinion, Convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity and Credibility Document Authenticity (hukou, Ric, Travel Documents) Fraudulent Documents and Human Smuggling Family Planning Policy Persecution on Political Opinion +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Carla Sturdy

Claimants' Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Negative Decision (rpd Determination Dated November 17, 2006)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established their identity and country of reference
  2. 2 Whether proffered documents (hukou, RIC, travel documents) were authentic and acceptable
  3. 3 Whether claimant met onus to show well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion/family planning opposition

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimants failed to establish their identity or country of reference and proffered documents (hukou, RIC, travel documents) were found unreliable or unavailable, the claimants did not discharge the onus to show a serious possibility of persecution or a more-likely-than-not risk of torture/cruel treatment; therefore their refugee protection claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division denies the refugee protection claims; negative decision dated November 17, 2006.