TB9-21521

TB9-21521

The RAD confirms the RPD's decision because on an independent correctness review the adult appellants failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that they are genuine Falun Gong practitioners: their testimony was vague, incoherent and not commensurate with their claimed practice and education; a significant omission in the BOC about the son's alleged shunning undermined the claim; documentary evidence lacked sufficient probative value; and objective evidence does not establish that their Canadian activities were brought to the attention of Chinese authorities to support a sur place claim.

Citation
TB9-21521
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse of Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claim, Genuineness of Religious Belief, Country Conditions, Evidentiary Weight of Unsworn Documents
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claim Genuineness of Religious Belief Country Conditions Evidentiary Weight of Unsworn Documents

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse of Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adult appellants are genuine Falun Gong practitioners
  2. 2 Whether the RPD improperly tested knowledge (trivia) in assessing genuineness
  3. 3 Whether omission in the Basis of Claim (son shunned at school) undermines credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD's decision because on an independent correctness review the adult appellants failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that they are genuine Falun Gong practitioners: their testimony was vague, incoherent and not commensurate with their claimed practice and education; a significant omission in the BOC about the son's alleged shunning undermined the claim; documentary evidence lacked sufficient probative value; and objective evidence does not establish that their Canadian activities were brought to the attention of Chinese authorities to support a sur place claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed