TC0-06357

TC0-06357

The appeal is dismissed because on an independent assessment the Appellants were not credible: the summons was determined to be fraudulent based on format inconsistencies with authoritative samples and lack of corroborating coercive action, the country evidence did not demonstrate a risk of persecution for ordinary house church Christians in Jiangsu, and testimony and lack of corroboration established that the Appellants are not genuine practitioners of Christianity, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TC0-06357
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Document Authenticity, Country Conditions, Religious Persecution, Corroboration, Sur Place Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Asylum Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Document Authenticity Country Conditions Religious Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant was a genuine practicing Christian in China.
  2. 2 Whether the summons submitted is authentic and establishes pursuit by Chinese authorities.
  3. 3 Whether the Associate Appellant is a genuine Christian and faces a real risk on return.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because on an independent assessment the Appellants were not credible: the summons was determined to be fraudulent based on format inconsistencies with authoritative samples and lack of corroborating coercive action, the country evidence did not demonstrate a risk of persecution for ordinary house church Christians in Jiangsu, and testimony and lack of corroboration established that the Appellants are not genuine practitioners of Christianity, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of February 12, 2020 confirmed