TB9-15837

TB9-15837

On independent review the RAD found the Appellants' significant delay in claiming, lack of credible evidence that they were wanted by Chinese authorities, and adverse findings on genuineness of Falun Gong practice established on the balance of probabilities that they lacked subjective fear and there was no serious possibility of persecution on return; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-15837
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant); Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellant); Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Sur Place Claim, Credibility Findings, Delay in Claiming, Standard of Review, State Persecution of Falun Gong Practitioners
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Definition Sur Place Claim Credibility Findings Delay in Claiming Standard of Review +1 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

XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant)

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellant)

Appellant Associate

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Respondent)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants are wanted by Chinese authorities for Falun Gong activities
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants can safely return to China and practice Falun Gong

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD found the Appellants' significant delay in claiming, lack of credible evidence that they were wanted by Chinese authorities, and adverse findings on genuineness of Falun Gong practice established on the balance of probabilities that they lacked subjective fear and there was no serious possibility of persecution on return; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 23, 2019 confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA