TB6-00951

TB6-00951

The claim fails because the claimant was found not credible regarding his Falun Gong practice and subjective fear (due to delay, evasive evidence and lack of demonstrated commitment), and there is no evidence his activities have been or would be brought to the attention of Chinese authorities; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or protection-necessitating risk under IRPA.

Citation
TB6-00951
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection Claim, Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution, Sur Place
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Protection Claim Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution Sur Place

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's identity and account of practising Falun Gong

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the claimant was found not credible regarding his Falun Gong practice and subjective fear (due to delay, evasive evidence and lack of demonstrated commitment), and there is no evidence his activities have been or would be brought to the attention of Chinese authorities; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or protection-necessitating risk under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected; no protection granted.