TB0-02695

TB0-02695

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony contained material inconsistencies and omissions undermining his credibility about church membership and being wanted by police, the summons and documents lacked sufficient reliable support and could be fraudulent, and country evidence did not show a real risk of persecution of underground Protestants in Liaoning; on the balance of probabilities the claimant would not face persecution or torture on return, therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-02695
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Risk Assessment, Freedom of Religion, Country Conditions, Documentary Evidence, Persecution
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Freedom of Religion Credibility Convention Refugee Risk Assessment +3 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a genuine practicing Christian in China
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was wanted by the Public Security Bureau following a church raid
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's faith in Canada was genuine or motivated to bolster a claim

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony contained material inconsistencies and omissions undermining his credibility about church membership and being wanted by police, the summons and documents lacked sufficient reliable support and could be fraudulent, and country evidence did not show a real risk of persecution of underground Protestants in Liaoning; on the balance of probabilities the claimant would not face persecution or torture on return, therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection