TB2-12035

TB2-12035

Tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China, her travel account was implausible given effective exit controls (Golden Shield), supporting documents were not genuine, and evidence of practice in Canada was insufficient or fabricated; therefore she does not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
TB2-12035
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons Delivered)
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, Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claim, Religious Persecution, Exit Controls, Golden Shield
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claim Religious Persecution +2 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a Falun Gong practitioner in the People's Republic of China
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was wanted by Chinese authorities
  3. 3 Whether the claimant left China as she described using her genuine passport

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China, her travel account was implausible given effective exit controls (Golden Shield), supporting documents were not genuine, and evidence of practice in Canada was insufficient or fabricated; therefore she does not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected. Claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.