TB8-18843

TB8-18843

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings that the Principal Appellant did not genuinely practice the Church of Almighty God in China or Canada, that she lacked knowledge of a core doctrine, and that there was no evidence of a sur place risk or state knowledge of her Canadian conduct; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB8-18843
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Appeal Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Sur Place Claim, Convention Refugee Status, Burden of Proof, Religious Persecution, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Religious Freedom Credibility Findings Sur Place Claim Convention Refugee Status Burden of Proof +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Appeal Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant genuinely practiced the Church of Almighty God in China and Canada
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies about meeting location and core doctrine justify negative credibility inferences
  3. 3 Whether a sur place claim was established based on conduct in Canada

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings that the Principal Appellant did not genuinely practice the Church of Almighty God in China or Canada, that she lacked knowledge of a core doctrine, and that there was no evidence of a sur place risk or state knowledge of her Canadian conduct; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection