TB0-01210

TB0-01210

The decision-maker rejected the claimants' credibility and found key documents unreliable or fraudulent; combined with country documentation indicating fines rather than forced sterilization in Guangdong, the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment, so their refugee and protection claims were dismissed.

Citation
TB0-01210
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
One Child Policy, Forced Sterilization, Credibility, Documentary Evidence, Country Conditions, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Law Human Rights One Child Policy Forced Sterilization Credibility +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the claimants face a real risk of forced sterilization or forced abortion by Family Planning authorities in Guangdong if returned
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' oral testimony and documentary evidence are credible and genuine

Ratio Decidendi

The decision-maker rejected the claimants' credibility and found key documents unreliable or fraudulent; combined with country documentation indicating fines rather than forced sterilization in Guangdong, the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment, so their refugee and protection claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX and XXXXX XXXX XXXX