TB1-05133

TB1-05133

The claimants were found not credible on central elements (expropriation, how documents/travel occurred, and family‑planning fears); documentary and country evidence indicate any sanction for an out‑of‑plan birth in Guangdong is most likely a social compensation fine rather than forced sterilization; alleged prosecution for obstructing demolition would be under a law of general application and not persecution; therefore there is not a serious possibility of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claims fail.

Citation
TB1-05133
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Expropriation and Land Rights, One‑child Policy, Forced Sterilization, Social Compensation Fines, Document/identity Fraud, Smuggling, Risk of Persecution, Return to Country of Origin
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Credibility Assessment Expropriation and Land Rights One‑child Policy +6 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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants credibly established expropriation and targeting by public security (PSB) such that they face persecution
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a real risk of forced sterilization or persecutory family‑planning sanctions on return
  3. 3 Whether alleged prosecution would amount to persecution or is a law of general application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were found not credible on central elements (expropriation, how documents/travel occurred, and family‑planning fears); documentary and country evidence indicate any sanction for an out‑of‑plan birth in Guangdong is most likely a social compensation fine rather than forced sterilization; alleged prosecution for obstructing demolition would be under a law of general application and not persecution; therefore there is not a serious possibility of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed: claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.