TA4-00188

TA4-00188

Claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face persecution (forced abortion or forced sterilization) for a Convention reason if returned; documentary and country evidence indicate likely penalties are fines and denial of benefits rather than sterilization, and the One-Child Policy itself is a legitimate state policy and not per se persecutory; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA4-00188
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
One Child Policy, Forced Abortion, Forced Sterilization, Credibility Assessment, Risk Assessment, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Population and Family Planning Policy One Child Policy Forced Abortion Forced Sterilization Credibility Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a real risk of forced sterilization or other persecution if returned to China
  2. 2 Whether China's One-Child Policy is inherently persecutory as a matter of law
  3. 3 Credibility of the female claimant's account of a forced abortion and subsequent risk assertions

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face persecution (forced abortion or forced sterilization) for a Convention reason if returned; documentary and country evidence indicate likely penalties are fines and denial of benefits rather than sterilization, and the One-Child Policy itself is a legitimate state policy and not per se persecutory; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division dismisses the claimants' refugee protection claim