TA6-09504

TA6-09504

The panel rejected the claimant's central assertions as not credible because of material inconsistencies, lack of objective corroboration (including her ability to obtain and use a passport and exit visa without restriction), implausibility that she would risk membership in an underground church while pursuing emigration, and contradictory accounts of PSB visits; on the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-09504
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister; Presiding Panel: L. Weinroth
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 97(1) / Hearing/decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant deemed not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Religious Belief, Credibility, Passports and Visas, Right to Leave, Freedom of Movement, Persecution Risk, Convention Refugee, Sur Place Claim, China
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Administrative Law Human Rights Religious Belief Credibility Passports and Visas Right to Leave +5 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

L. Weinroth

Presiding Panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 97(1) / Hearing/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant would face persecution for religious belief if returned to China

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's central assertions as not credible because of material inconsistencies, lack of objective corroboration (including her ability to obtain and use a passport and exit visa without restriction), implausibility that she would risk membership in an underground church while pursuing emigration, and contradictory accounts of PSB visits; on the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant deemed not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection