TA9-00491

TA9-00491

Because the male claimant knowingly submitted documents the panel found to be fraudulent and failed to establish his Chinese identity, and because documentary evidence showed low risk of serious persecution for Catholics in Fujian and that family planning enforcement would likely result in fines rather than forced abortion or sterilization, the panel found no serious possibility of persecution for the adult claimants; the minor claimants (US citizens) had no credible risk and adequate state protection in the United States — accordingly all claims were refused under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-00491
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (merits Adjudication)
Outcome
All refugee claims dismissed; adult claimants not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; minor claimants' claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Identity/document Authenticity, One‑child Policy, Forced Abortion/sterilization, State Protection, Religious Persecution, Production of Documents
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Family Planning Policy Religious Freedom Credibility Assessment Identity/document Authenticity +5 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (merits Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adult claimants established identity as nationals of China and credibility of their accounts
  2. 2 Whether adult claimants face a serious possibility of persecution for Catholic faith in Fujian province
  3. 3 Whether adult female claimant would face forced abortion or sterilization under China's family planning policy on return

Ratio Decidendi

Because the male claimant knowingly submitted documents the panel found to be fraudulent and failed to establish his Chinese identity, and because documentary evidence showed low risk of serious persecution for Catholics in Fujian and that family planning enforcement would likely result in fines rather than forced abortion or sterilization, the panel found no serious possibility of persecution for the adult claimants; the minor claimants (US citizens) had no credible risk and adequate state protection in the United States — accordingly all claims were refused under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

All refugee claims dismissed; adult claimants not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; minor claimants' claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims of the male and female claimants are rejected (refused protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA)
  • Claims of the two minor claimants are rejected (not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection)