TB9-26251

TB9-26251

On independent reassessment the RAD found multiple unexplained inconsistencies between POE interviews, the BOC and hearing testimony, implausible explanations for prior visa applications, and an absence of corroborating evidence; these negative credibility inferences established that the Appellants were not genuine Falun Gong practitioners and there was no serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return, therefore the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
TB9-26251
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Status Determination, Corroboration, Sur Place Claims, Religious Persecution (falun Gong)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Status Determination Corroboration Sur Place Claims Religious Persecution (falun Gong)

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by failing to assess each claim independently
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner
  3. 3 Whether inconsistencies between Port of Entry interviews, the Basis of Claim and hearing testimony warranted negative credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

On independent reassessment the RAD found multiple unexplained inconsistencies between POE interviews, the BOC and hearing testimony, implausible explanations for prior visa applications, and an absence of corroborating evidence; these negative credibility inferences established that the Appellants were not genuine Falun Gong practitioners and there was no serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return, therefore the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision dated August 29, 2019