TA6-06889

TA6-06889

The panel found the claimant's identity and documentary evidence not credible or potentially inauthentic and, on the totality of evidence including country documents showing fines rather than forced sterilization/abortion, the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she or her child face persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-06889
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant / Represented by Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following RPD Hearing (final Determination)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
One Child Policy, Family Planning, Identity Documents, Credibility, Forced Sterilization, Forced Abortion, Hukou Registration, Country Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law One Child Policy Family Planning Identity Documents Credibility Forced Sterilization +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant / Represented by Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following RPD Hearing (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity of the claimants
  2. 2 Credibility of PIF narrative and oral testimony
  3. 3 Authenticity of identity documents

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's identity and documentary evidence not credible or potentially inauthentic and, on the totality of evidence including country documents showing fines rather than forced sterilization/abortion, the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she or her child face persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXX XXXXX and her daughter and dismisses the refugee protection claim