TB1-02846

TB1-02846

The panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant's PIF and oral testimony were not credible due to inconsistencies, implausibilities (including ability to exit China despite alleged PSB pursuit), late and potentially fraudulent documents, lack of corroboration of family harm, and rehearsed or vague account of the raid; therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk and the claim is rejected.

Citation
TB1-02846
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Falun Gong, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Country Conditions, Fraudulent Documents, Exit Controls/golden Shield
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Falun Gong Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Country Conditions +2 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner
  2. 2 Whether claimant was persecuted or is at risk on return
  3. 3 Credibility of PIF and oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant's PIF and oral testimony were not credible due to inconsistencies, implausibilities (including ability to exit China despite alleged PSB pursuit), late and potentially fraudulent documents, lack of corroboration of family harm, and rehearsed or vague account of the raid; therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim.