TA9-12963

TA9-12963

Because the claimant was found not credible on central issues, failed to provide compelling evidence that state protection in China would be unavailable, produced insufficient corroboration and no persuasive evidence of ongoing pursuit, the panel concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment and rejected the refugee claims of the principal and two minor claimants.

Citation
TA9-12963
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (oral Decision Rendered March 4, 2011; Written Reasons March 23, 2011)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Personal Information Form Omissions, Fraudulent Documents, Medical Evidence, Risk of Persecution, Child Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Personal Information Form Omissions Fraudulent Documents +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (oral Decision Rendered March 4, 2011; Written Reasons March 23, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of claimant's testimony and PIF narrative
  2. 2 whether state protection in China was available and accessible
  3. 3 whether internal relocation (to husband's province) was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant was found not credible on central issues, failed to provide compelling evidence that state protection in China would be unavailable, produced insufficient corroboration and no persuasive evidence of ongoing pursuit, the panel concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment and rejected the refugee claims of the principal and two minor claimants.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXX and the two minor claimants (decision rendered March 4, 2011; written reasons March 23, 2011)