TB0-03941

TB0-03941

The claimant's central allegations were found not credible due to multiple patent implausibilities and omissions; consequently the panel placed no weight on claimant-dependent evidence and, having found no credible evidence of a serious possibility of persecution for religion or a real risk of forced abortion/sterilization or other serious harm, concluded the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-03941
Parties
Claimant: Fei Chan Lin; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing (de Novo)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Religious Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Family Planning Enforcement, Gender Related Persecution, Forced Abortion/sterilization Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Law Religious Persecution Credibility Assessment Family Planning Enforcement Gender Related Persecution Forced Abortion/sterilization Risk

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fei Chan Lin

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing (de Novo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection (risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's allegations regarding participation in an underground house church and receipt of an arrest warrant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's central allegations were found not credible due to multiple patent implausibilities and omissions; consequently the panel placed no weight on claimant-dependent evidence and, having found no credible evidence of a serious possibility of persecution for religion or a real risk of forced abortion/sterilization or other serious harm, concluded the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim rejected