TB2-04124

TB2-04124

The panel rejected the claims because pervasive adverse credibility findings, inconsistencies in testimony, the non‑coercive nature and apparent lack of genuineness of the summons, and the claimants' demonstrated ability to exit China undermine the claim that they are being pursued; even if pursued their conduct would attract prosecution under a neutral law rather than persecution, and the claimed conversion to Christianity lacked credible substantiation — therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TB2-04124
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Redetermination of the Claim / Decision
Outcome
All claims rejected
Legal Topics
Land Expropriation, Credibility Assessment, Persecution Vs. Prosecution, Religious Freedom (christianity), Sur Place Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Land Expropriation Credibility Assessment Persecution Vs. Prosecution Religious Freedom (christianity) Sur Place Claims

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Redetermination of the Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether the PSB pursuit amounted to persecution or prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the summons and supporting documents are genuine

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because pervasive adverse credibility findings, inconsistencies in testimony, the non‑coercive nature and apparent lack of genuineness of the summons, and the claimants' demonstrated ability to exit China undermine the claim that they are being pursued; even if pursued their conduct would attract prosecution under a neutral law rather than persecution, and the claimed conversion to Christianity lacked credible substantiation — therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

All claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; no protection granted under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1)