TB5-00248

TB5-00248

Documentary evidence and testimony established that the principal claimant was forcibly aborted and issued sterilization and penalty notices for violating China’s family planning policy; the treatment constitutes a serious possibility of persecution, state protection is unavailable because the perpetrators are state family planning authorities, and internal relocation is not reasonable; therefore the claimants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB5-00248
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee Determination Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 97) / Hearing Oral Decision Rendered and Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claims allowed; claimants found to be Convention refugees
Legal Topics
One Child Policy, Forced Abortion, Forced Sterilization, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law One Child Policy Forced Abortion Forced Sterilization State Protection +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee Determination Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 97) / Hearing Oral Decision Rendered and Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether forced abortion and sterilization amount to persecution
  3. 3 Whether there is a nexus between the harm and a Convention ground (family planning violations)

Ratio Decidendi

Documentary evidence and testimony established that the principal claimant was forcibly aborted and issued sterilization and penalty notices for violating China’s family planning policy; the treatment constitutes a serious possibility of persecution, state protection is unavailable because the perpetrators are state family planning authorities, and internal relocation is not reasonable; therefore the claimants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Claims allowed; claimants found to be Convention refugees

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division finds the principal claimant, the co-claimant and the minor claimants to be Convention refugees