TB7-12466

TB7-12466

The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the balance of probabilities the Appellants lacked credibility due to material inconsistencies and omissions, insufficient knowledge of Falun Gong inconsistent with alleged long‑term and master status, documentary country evidence undermining their account (including expected use of summonses/arrest and airport exit controls), failure to claim protection in intermediate countries, and no new evidence warranting an oral hearing; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB7-12466
Parties
Applicant/appellant Principal: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Applicant/appellant Spouse: Secondary Appellant (spouse, name redacted); Applicant/appellant Adult Child: Daughter Appellant (name redacted); Applicant/appellant Minor Child: Minor Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Review of Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claim, Religious Belief Analysis (falun Gong), Country Conditions (china), Standard of Review, Request for Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claim Religious Belief Analysis (falun Gong) Country Conditions (china) 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant/appellant Principal

Secondary Appellant (spouse, name redacted)

Applicant/appellant Spouse

Daughter Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant/appellant Adult Child

Minor Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant/appellant Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Review of Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RAD should hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants are genuine Falun Gong practitioners

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the balance of probabilities the Appellants lacked credibility due to material inconsistencies and omissions, insufficient knowledge of Falun Gong inconsistent with alleged long‑term and master status, documentary country evidence undermining their account (including expected use of summonses/arrest and airport exit controls), failure to claim protection in intermediate countries, and no new evidence warranting an oral hearing; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Request for an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA denied