TA7-12364

TA7-12364

The claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected because, on a balance of probabilities, credibility concerns and the absence of evidence that her post‑departure religious activities would likely have come to the attention of Chinese authorities mean she failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to the People's Republic of China.

Citation
TA7-12364
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXXX XXX; Respondent: Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision Following Hearing (june 9, 2009)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics
Sur Place, Religious Persecution, Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Visitor Visa Refusal/departure Order
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Sur Place Religious Persecution Credibility Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXX

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision Following Hearing (june 9, 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's claim is a refugee sur place

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected because, on a balance of probabilities, credibility concerns and the absence of evidence that her post‑departure religious activities would likely have come to the attention of Chinese authorities mean she failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to the People's Republic of China.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant as neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  • No protection granted; claimant's removal/departure arrangements remain governed by existing CIC orders