TB6-04391

TB6-04391

The RAD admitted limited new evidence under s110(4) but, on assessment of credibility and relevance and on a balance of probabilities, concluded the change in Chinese law to a two‑child policy effective January 1, 2016 materially altered the regulatory framework so that the Appellants would not face the persecution alleged (forced IUD/sterilization or persecutory fines); accordingly the RPD decision that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is upheld and the appeal dismissed pursuant to s111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-04391
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (upheld Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld — Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence (s110(4) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Family Planning Policy (china One‑child/two‑child), Retroactivity, Persecution Risk Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Protection Admissibility of New Evidence (s110(4) Irpa) Credibility Assessment Family Planning Policy (china One‑child/two‑child) Retroactivity +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (upheld Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider relevant, probative and reliable documentary evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution (s96) or meet s97 threshold

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted limited new evidence under s110(4) but, on assessment of credibility and relevance and on a balance of probabilities, concluded the change in Chinese law to a two‑child policy effective January 1, 2016 materially altered the regulatory framework so that the Appellants would not face the persecution alleged (forced IUD/sterilization or persecutory fines); accordingly the RPD decision that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is upheld and the appeal dismissed pursuant to s111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld — Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA; RPD decision of March 4, 2016 is upheld