TB1-03515

TB1-03515

The claimant's testimony and PIF were not found credible on multiple material points, documentary country evidence shows a low risk of arrest or persecution of lay house‑church Christians in Guangdong, and there is no substantiated risk from family planning authorities; therefore, on the balance of probabilities the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-03515
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 97) / De Novo Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution (house Churches), Family Planning / Sterilization, Country Conditions (guangdong), Evidence and Documentary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution (house Churches) Family Planning / Sterilization Country Conditions (guangdong) Evidence and Documentary Corroboration

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 97) / De Novo Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee for persecution based on religion
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces risk from family planning authorities (sterilization)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's PIF and oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony and PIF were not found credible on multiple material points, documentary country evidence shows a low risk of arrest or persecution of lay house‑church Christians in Guangdong, and there is no substantiated risk from family planning authorities; therefore, on the balance of probabilities the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's refugee protection claim