TB8-07801

TB8-07801

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility inferences were not justified: the new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible; interpretation errors and an innocent date discrepancy did not warrant rejection; the Principal Appellant was a credible witness and could plausibly have left China despite being a person of interest; on balance the Appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution as Falun Gong practitioners, so the RPD's decision was set aside and a positive determination substituted under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-07801
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted with a positive determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Convention Refugee Determination, Particular Social Group (falun Gong), State Persecution, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Convention Refugee Determination Particular Social Group (falun Gong) +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether new evidence on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant could have lawfully exited China despite being a person of interest

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility inferences were not justified: the new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible; interpretation errors and an innocent date discrepancy did not warrant rejection; the Principal Appellant was a credible witness and could plausibly have left China despite being a person of interest; on balance the Appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution as Falun Gong practitioners, so the RPD's decision was set aside and a positive determination substituted under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted with a positive determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA
  • Refugee Protection Division decision set aside and substituted with a positive determination