TB5-11944

TB5-11944

The Panel rejected the claimants' testimony as not credible based on multiple negative inferences (absence of expected PSB documentation, inconsistencies about practice group safety and exit from China, weak corroboration), found they were not genuine Falun Gong practitioners in China or in Canada, and therefore concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA and no need for protection under s.97(1); consequently the claims were rejected and found to have no credible basis under ss.107(2) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-11944
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Male Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; claims have no credible basis under ss.107(2) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Sur Place, Persecution Risk, Corroboration, No Credible Basis (s.107(2) Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Sur Place Persecution Risk Corroboration No Credible Basis (s.107(2) Irpa)

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Male Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are genuine Falun Gong practitioners
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in China (s.96 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection (s.97(1) IRPA)

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claimants' testimony as not credible based on multiple negative inferences (absence of expected PSB documentation, inconsistencies about practice group safety and exit from China, weak corroboration), found they were not genuine Falun Gong practitioners in China or in Canada, and therefore concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA and no need for protection under s.97(1); consequently the claims were rejected and found to have no credible basis under ss.107(2) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; claims have no credible basis under ss.107(2) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claims rejected
  • No relief granted to claimants