TB9-19440

TB9-19440

The Appellant's testimony was vague, evasive and inconsistent with his Basis of Claim and objective country documentation; the summons he submitted contains material discrepancies with official forms in the NDP and, viewed with the credibility findings, is likely not genuine; on the balance of probabilities the Appellant did not attend or practice Christianity in China and was not pursued by the PSB, so he fails to establish a risk of persecution or need for protection and the RPD decision is correct.

Citation
TB9-19440
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity, Persecution, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity Persecution Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant attended an underground Christian church in China
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was pursued by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) in China
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's testimony was credible

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's testimony was vague, evasive and inconsistent with his Basis of Claim and objective country documentation; the summons he submitted contains material discrepancies with official forms in the NDP and, viewed with the credibility findings, is likely not genuine; on the balance of probabilities the Appellant did not attend or practice Christianity in China and was not pursued by the PSB, so he fails to establish a risk of persecution or need for protection and the RPD decision is correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision of June 25, 2019 confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA