TB2-15853

TB2-15853

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he would face forced sterilisation if returned to China because the national family planning policy was changed in 2016 to permit two children, documentary evidence indicates registration and coercive sterilisation are not general contemporary state practice, and the claimant's factual assertions (wife in hiding, unregistered child) were not supported by reliable evidence; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB2-15853
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 & 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Forced Sterilisation, Change of Country Conditions, Credibility and Identity, Risk Assessment, Birth Registration (hukou)
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Reproductive Rights/family Planning Policy Forced Sterilisation Change of Country Conditions Credibility and Identity Risk Assessment Birth Registration (hukou)

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 & 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's identity and credibility are established
  2. 2 Whether change in China's family planning law removes risk arising from past violation
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces real risk of forced sterilisation on return to China

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he would face forced sterilisation if returned to China because the national family planning policy was changed in 2016 to permit two children, documentary evidence indicates registration and coercive sterilisation are not general contemporary state practice, and the claimant's factual assertions (wife in hiding, unregistered child) were not supported by reliable evidence; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied; no protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.