TB5-05049

TB5-05049

RAD upheld the RPD because objective documentary evidence and hearing testimony did not support allegations of coercion or state knowledge of religious practice; material inconsistencies, implausibilities and absence of corroborating documentation undermined credibility and, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-05049
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RAD upholds RPD decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility Assessment, Family Planning/one‑child Policy, Sur Place (religious Conversion), Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Credibility Assessment Family Planning/one‑child Policy Sur Place (religious Conversion) +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principal Appellant was credible regarding alleged coerced/forced abortions in 2007 and 2013
  2. 2 Whether lack of documentary evidence imposed an unreasonable evidentiary burden
  3. 3 Whether Appellants' sur place religious conversion exposes them to persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

RAD upheld the RPD because objective documentary evidence and hearing testimony did not support allegations of coercion or state knowledge of religious practice; material inconsistencies, implausibilities and absence of corroborating documentation undermined credibility and, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RAD upholds RPD decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Request for new hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied (no new evidence)