TB0-15750

TB0-15750

On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to establish his identity because key documents were found to be non-genuine or unreliable, oral testimony contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities, and negative inferences were warranted; failure to establish identity under s.106 IRPA and Rule 7 precludes acceptance of the refugee claim and justifies rejection of the claim.

Citation
TB0-15750
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Identity, Document Authenticity, Credibility, Falun Gong
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Identity Documents Evidence Authenticity Country Conditions Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Identity +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established his identity as a national of the People's Republic of China
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's key identity documents (RIC, hukou, driver's licence, occupation certificate, bankbook) are genuine
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's oral evidence is credible given inconsistencies and implausibilities

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to establish his identity because key documents were found to be non-genuine or unreliable, oral testimony contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities, and negative inferences were warranted; failure to establish identity under s.106 IRPA and Rule 7 precludes acceptance of the refugee claim and justifies rejection of the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection