TB8-12023

TB8-12023

The RAD found that the RPD erred in law and fact: the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in China because state‑sanctioned church attendance does not eliminate substantial restrictions and harassment documented in more recent country evidence, and adequate state protection/IFA is not available; accordingly the Principal Appellant is declared a Convention refugee. The Minor Appellant's claim was remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted RPD panel because the RPD failed to undertake a forward‑looking, child‑specific assessment of state protection and left unresolved material issues (credibility inconsistency, countries of reference, and family...

Citation
TB8-12023
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Remittal)
Outcome
Principal Appellant appeal allowed; substituted decision that Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee. Minor Appellant appeal allowed; remitted to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Freedom of Religion, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Child Protection, Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Status Freedom of Religion State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Remittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in China for her Christian faith
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection or a viable internal flight alternative exists for the Principal Appellant in China
  3. 3 Whether the Minor Appellant has access to adequate state protection in Guyana given her age and family circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that the RPD erred in law and fact: the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in China because state‑sanctioned church attendance does not eliminate substantial restrictions and harassment documented in more recent country evidence, and adequate state protection/IFA is not available; accordingly the Principal Appellant is declared a Convention refugee. The Minor Appellant's claim was remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted RPD panel because the RPD failed to undertake a forward‑looking, child‑specific assessment of state protection and left unresolved material issues (credibility inconsistency, countries of reference, and family...

Court Disposition

Principal Appellant appeal allowed; substituted decision that Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee. Minor Appellant appeal allowed; remitted to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Substitute decision: Principal Appellant declared a Convention refugee.
  • Remit Minor Appellant's claim to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.