TB6-16126

TB6-16126

The RAD found no reasonable apprehension of bias, concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record (inconsistent testimony, embellishment regarding practice location and exercises, limited knowledge inconsistent with alleged experience, and conflicting documentary/narrative statements), and determined the sur place claim was not established; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-16126
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Oral Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claims, Procedural Fairness, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claims Procedural Fairness Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Standard of Review

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Oral Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD displayed reasonable apprehension of bias or breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable or based on misconstrued or invented evidence
  3. 3 Whether the principal Appellant's claimed Falun Gong practice in China and Canada (sur place) was genuine

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found no reasonable apprehension of bias, concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record (inconsistent testimony, embellishment regarding practice location and exercises, limited knowledge inconsistent with alleged experience, and conflicting documentary/narrative statements), and determined the sur place claim was not established; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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