TB2-12079

TB2-12079

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was inconsistent and evasive, the household register displayed hallmarks of alteration indicating knowingly submitted false identification, the claimants re‑availed to China and failed to seek protection in other safe jurisdictions despite having valid status, and country evidence indicated fines rather than a real risk of forced sterilization in Guangdong; these findings together mean there is no serious possibility of persecution and no credible basis for the claim.

Citation
TB2-12079
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Secondary Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; there is no credible basis for the claim.
Legal Topics
One Child Policy, Family Planning Enforcement, Credibility and Documentary Authenticity, Document Fraud, Failure to Seek Protection in Safe Third Countries, Re Availment to Country of Origin
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law One Child Policy Family Planning Enforcement Credibility and Documentary Authenticity Document Fraud Failure to Seek Protection in Safe Third Countries +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a credible witness
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution for family-planning violations in Guangdong province
  3. 3 Whether identity documents (hukou) submitted are authentic or altered

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was inconsistent and evasive, the household register displayed hallmarks of alteration indicating knowingly submitted false identification, the claimants re‑availed to China and failed to seek protection in other safe jurisdictions despite having valid status, and country evidence indicated fines rather than a real risk of forced sterilization in Guangdong; these findings together mean there is no serious possibility of persecution and no credible basis for the claim.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; there is no credible basis for the claim.