TA9-19527

TA9-19527

On a balance of probabilities the panel found the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution if returned: documentary evidence showed Fujian is relatively tolerant, persecution is generally directed at clergy and high‑profile organisers rather than ordinary parishioners, the claimant had no leadership role, there was inadequate credible evidence that authorities were actively seeking him (no summons/arrest documented), and he could worship in official registered churches; therefore the claim failed under both Convention refugee and s.97(1) analyses.

Citation
TA9-19527
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Church Registration and Official/unofficial Churches, Regional Conditions (fujian)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Religious Freedom Country Conditions Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee for persecution on account of religion
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's allegations that the PSB seeks his arrest

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the panel found the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution if returned: documentary evidence showed Fujian is relatively tolerant, persecution is generally directed at clergy and high‑profile organisers rather than ordinary parishioners, the claimant had no leadership role, there was inadequate credible evidence that authorities were actively seeking him (no summons/arrest documented), and he could worship in official registered churches; therefore the claim failed under both Convention refugee and s.97(1) analyses.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed (decision dated October 3, 2011)