TB1-12014

TB1-12014

The Panel rejected the claims because the claimants were found not credible: key documents were internally inconsistent and therefore non‑genuine, the claimants admitted a deliberate falsehood to CBSA about their route, and there were multiple unexplained inconsistencies in PIF and testimony; combined with country evidence showing enforcement variability of the one‑child policy (particularly for returnees), the Panel found no well‑founded fear under s.96 and no risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97 on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
TB1-12014
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, One Child Policy Enforcement, Forced Abortion and Sterilization, Document Genuineness, Compelling Circumstances Doctrine
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Credibility Assessment One Child Policy Enforcement Forced Abortion and Sterilization Document Genuineness +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97
  3. 3 Credibility of oral testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claims because the claimants were found not credible: key documents were internally inconsistent and therefore non‑genuine, the claimants admitted a deliberate falsehood to CBSA about their route, and there were multiple unexplained inconsistencies in PIF and testimony; combined with country evidence showing enforcement variability of the one‑child policy (particularly for returnees), the Panel found no well‑founded fear under s.96 and no risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97 on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA