VB3-03253

VB3-03253

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, on review, RPD findings on facts and mixed law and fact were reasonable: appellants failed to demonstrate a Convention nexus (particular social group) or to rebut the presumption of state protection in China; the new evidence did not raise a central credibility issue justifying an oral hearing or a different outcome; the determinate errors (subjective fear finding) were not determinative and did not vitiate the overall reasonableness of the RPD decision.

Citation
VB3-03253
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection Claim, Credibility Assessment, State Protection Presumption, Expropriation/property Disputes, Particular Social Group, New Evidence Under S.110(4), Standard of Review/deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Claim Credibility Assessment State Protection Presumption Expropriation/property Disputes Particular Social Group +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees under s.96 or persons in need of protection under s.97 of the Act
  2. 2 Whether appellants constitute a particular social group (village members opposing expropriation)
  3. 3 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings including weight given to short US visit

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, on review, RPD findings on facts and mixed law and fact were reasonable: appellants failed to demonstrate a Convention nexus (particular social group) or to rebut the presumption of state protection in China; the new evidence did not raise a central credibility issue justifying an oral hearing or a different outcome; the determinate errors (subjective fear finding) were not determinative and did not vitiate the overall reasonableness of the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97; appeal dismissed