TB0-17165

TB0-17165

The panel found pervasive and significant contradictions in testimony and PIFs, material documentary deficiencies and indicators of fraud, implausible conduct (including delay, failure to seek protection in the US and inconsistent travel/visa assertions), and therefore concluded the claimants failed to establish credibility or a serious possibility of persecution or risk of forced sterilization; accordingly the claims were rejected and declared manifestly unfounded under IRPA s.107.1.

Citation
TB0-17165
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (female claimant); Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (male claimant); Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor claimant)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claims declared manifestly unfounded
Legal Topics
Refugee Claim, Credibility Assessment, Fraudulent Documents, Manifestly Unfounded, Family Planning Policy and Sterilization, Religious/ Belief Persecution (falun Gong)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Claim Credibility Assessment Fraudulent Documents Manifestly Unfounded +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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX (female claimant)

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (male claimant)

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor claimant)

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether claimants were residents of China at the material time
  2. 2 credibility of claimants' testimony and documents
  3. 3 whether female claimant was persecuted for Falun Gong practice

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found pervasive and significant contradictions in testimony and PIFs, material documentary deficiencies and indicators of fraud, implausible conduct (including delay, failure to seek protection in the US and inconsistent travel/visa assertions), and therefore concluded the claimants failed to establish credibility or a serious possibility of persecution or risk of forced sterilization; accordingly the claims were rejected and declared manifestly unfounded under IRPA s.107.1.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claims declared manifestly unfounded

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims denied
  • Claims declared manifestly unfounded pursuant to IRPA s.107.1