TA4-18547

TA4-18547

The claim is rejected because, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant's testimony was found not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities and the documentary evidence lacked weight or corroboration; absent credible evidence of state interest or a real risk of persecution or torture, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA4-18547
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: J. Dalrymple / M. Sack; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Sur Place Claim, Political Opinion, Freedom of Association, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Torture and Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Removal/deportation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Sur Place Claim Political Opinion Freedom of Association +4 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

J. Dalrymple / M. Sack

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under ss.96/97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's alleged Falun Gong practice in Canada (sur place) attracts a well‑founded fear of persecution on return to China

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant's testimony was found not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities and the documentary evidence lacked weight or corroboration; absent credible evidence of state interest or a real risk of persecution or torture, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division

Orders

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