TA9-06463

TA9-06463

The panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible based on multiple inconsistencies, implausibilities and negative inferences from the intake interview, PIF and testimony; country documentation showed no pattern of recent persecution of lay Christians in Fujian province and common policing practices would likely have produced summonses or documentation if the PSB sought him; therefore the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a serious possibility of risk to life/cruel treatment/torture and the claim was not made in good faith.

Citation
TA9-06463
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claims, Freedom of Religion, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment, Country Evidence, Intake Interview/interpretation
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Religious Freedom Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claims Freedom of Religion +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection (risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment/torture)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documents

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible based on multiple inconsistencies, implausibilities and negative inferences from the intake interview, PIF and testimony; country documentation showed no pattern of recent persecution of lay Christians in Fujian province and common policing practices would likely have produced summonses or documentation if the PSB sought him; therefore the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a serious possibility of risk to life/cruel treatment/torture and the claim was not made in good faith.

Court Disposition

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