TB1-20518

TB1-20518

The panel found the claimant not credible based on failure to seek asylum in the United States, documentary inconsistencies (medical and hospital records and a fine notice documenting illegal activity), improbability of forced abortion as an immediate measure given country evidence, and the claimant's ability to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB1-20518
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Forced Abortion and Sterilization, Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Failure to Claim in Transit Country, Risk of Torture, Removal Risk
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Forced Abortion and Sterilization Credibility Assessment Country Conditions Failure to Claim in Transit Country +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible based on failure to seek asylum in the United States, documentary inconsistencies (medical and hospital records and a fine notice documenting illegal activity), improbability of forced abortion as an immediate measure given country evidence, and the claimant's ability to depart China on an authentic passport despite alleged heightened interest by authorities; therefore the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a need for protection and removal would likely result at worst in fines not persecution or torture.

Court Disposition

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