TB9-34859

TB9-34859

The RPD's adverse credibility findings are upheld because the principal appellant could not demonstrate knowledge of fundamental Falun Gong concepts (righteous thoughts, attachments, content of Zhuan Falun) commensurate with her alleged period of practice, failed to produce an important corroborating document (the summons), offered implausible explanations for gaps, and no new evidence was submitted to trigger an oral hearing; on that basis the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-34859
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Religion Based Persecution, Falun Gong, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Religion Based Persecution Falun Gong Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Jurisdiction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's credibility findings should be upheld
  2. 2 Whether assessment of Falun Gong knowledge was a proper basis for adverse credibility
  3. 3 Whether new evidence was required to convene an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings are upheld because the principal appellant could not demonstrate knowledge of fundamental Falun Gong concepts (righteous thoughts, attachments, content of Zhuan Falun) commensurate with her alleged period of practice, failed to produce an important corroborating document (the summons), offered implausible explanations for gaps, and no new evidence was submitted to trigger an oral hearing; on that basis the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection