TB4-10702

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant's testimony and supporting documents not credible on numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities, preferred documentary country evidence on airport monitoring and family planning enforcement, and therefore concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment on return; accordingly the claim failed under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation: TB4-10702
Parties: Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 19 January 2015
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision
Outcome: Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics: Credibility, Forced Abortion and Family Planning Enforcement, Country Conditions Evidence, No Credible Basis
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Forced Abortion and Family Planning Enforcement Country Conditions Evidence No Credible Basis

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground
2 Whether the claimant would personally face a risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture on return
3 Whether the claimant was subjected to forced abortion or coercive family planning measures

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection