TB6-18950

TB6-18950

The RAD confirmed the RPD's denial of refugee protection because the appellants' credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and fabrication, and on the balance of probabilities contemporary country evidence and legal instruments indicate no legal basis for forced insertion of an IUD or sterilization as a standard penalty; the standard penalty for unauthorized births is a fine which is not persecutory, and the new two-child policy and national directives banning forced measures reduce the risk of persecution on return.

Citation
TB6-18950
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Appeal Considered on the Record (no New Evidence, No Oral Hearing); Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Forced Sterilization and Forced Contraception, Country Conditions, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Appeal Considered on the Record (no New Evidence, No Oral Hearing); Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants should have claimed protection in South Korea and effect on subjective fear
  2. 2 Whether the respondent would be forced to use an IUD or other contraceptive on return to China
  3. 3 Whether the requirement to use contraception or repeated fines constitutes persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's denial of refugee protection because the appellants' credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and fabrication, and on the balance of probabilities contemporary country evidence and legal instruments indicate no legal basis for forced insertion of an IUD or sterilization as a standard penalty; the standard penalty for unauthorized births is a fine which is not persecutory, and the new two-child policy and national directives banning forced measures reduce the risk of persecution on return.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act