TB8-01856

TB8-01856

The RAD found the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings based on the absence of a summons and on a blanket finding that wanted persons could not exit China on passports (including reliance on a revoked JG), rejected the appellants' translator list as late under s.110(4) but conducted an independent merits assessment and concluded the Principal and Third Appellant are credible Falun Gong practitioners (Second Appellant credible by association), that there is no effective state protection or internal flight alternative, and therefore the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB8-01856
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Third Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Redetermination After Federal Court Remittal) / Redetermination on Merits Before Rad; Appeal Allowed and Decision Substituted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes its own decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claim, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110 Irpa), Translator/interpretation Errors
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claim State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110 Irpa) +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Third Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Redetermination After Federal Court Remittal) / Redetermination on Merits Before Rad; Appeal Allowed and Decision Substituted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of late/new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Proper appraisal of credibility regarding absence of summons and ability to exit China on passports
  3. 3 Whether sur place claim is established

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings based on the absence of a summons and on a blanket finding that wanted persons could not exit China on passports (including reliance on a revoked JG), rejected the appellants' translator list as late under s.110(4) but conducted an independent merits assessment and concluded the Principal and Third Appellant are credible Falun Gong practitioners (Second Appellant credible by association), that there is no effective state protection or internal flight alternative, and therefore the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes its own decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RAD substitutes decision: Principal and Third Appellant are Convention refugees; Second Appellant is a Convention refugee by association