TB4-12526

TB4-12526

The RAD admitted the post-decision medical and affidavit evidence as new evidence but, applying a hybrid independent assessment while respecting the RPD's credibility findings, concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings and documentary conclusions were reasonable; the Appellants were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the One-Child Policy evidence did not establish a real risk of forced abortion or sterilization in Guangdong such that removal would amount to persecution.

Citation
TB4-12526
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, One Child Policy and Family Planning Enforcement, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence One Child Policy and Family Planning Enforcement +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed medical and affidavit evidence filed on appeal is admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the principal Appellant would face persecution from family planning authorities (One-Child Policy) if returned to China

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the post-decision medical and affidavit evidence as new evidence but, applying a hybrid independent assessment while respecting the RPD's credibility findings, concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings and documentary conclusions were reasonable; the Appellants were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the One-Child Policy evidence did not establish a real risk of forced abortion or sterilization in Guangdong such that removal would amount to persecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Admit proposed new medical and affidavit evidence on appeal
  • Confirm the RPD decision and dismiss the appeal