TB7-20186

TB7-20186

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish a forward‑facing risk of persecution: the PA's 2001 son is not counted toward family planning limits; the two Canadian‑born children would count but subsequent national policy changes (2016 two‑child, 2021 three‑child) and recent country evidence show Shanghai aligns with de‑prioritised enforcement; there is insufficient evidence of forced sterilization in Shanghai and social compensation fines, if ever imposed, are unlikely or would not be persecutory given available evidence; the Associate Appellant faces no independent risk.

Citation
TB7-20186
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Redetermination / Decision on Redetermination (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; decision of the RPD confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Family Planning Policy, Risk Assessment, Credibility Findings, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Family Planning Policy Risk Assessment Credibility Findings Country Conditions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Redetermination / Decision on Redetermination (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a forward‑facing risk of persecution from China's family planning enforcement
  2. 2 Whether forced sterilization is a realistic risk in Shanghai
  3. 3 Whether social compensation fines would be imposed and, if imposed, whether they would be persecutory

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish a forward‑facing risk of persecution: the PA's 2001 son is not counted toward family planning limits; the two Canadian‑born children would count but subsequent national policy changes (2016 two‑child, 2021 three‑child) and recent country evidence show Shanghai aligns with de‑prioritised enforcement; there is insufficient evidence of forced sterilization in Shanghai and social compensation fines, if ever imposed, are unlikely or would not be persecutory given available evidence; the Associate Appellant faces no independent risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; decision of the RPD confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed