TB4-03719

TB4-03719

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's multiple negative credibility findings were supported by the record, the RPD reasonably gave little or no weight to documentary and photographic evidence and to alleged sur place activities, there was no new evidence to trigger an oral hearing under s.110(6), and the country/material relied upon did not establish a real likelihood that the Appellants would be identified and persecuted by Chinese authorities; accordingly the Appellants failed to meet the thresholds for Convention refugee or s.97 protection.

Citation
TB4-03719
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Decision Confirming RPD Declination
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Refugee Sur Place, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA, Burden of Proof, Section 97 Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Refugee Sur Place Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA Burden of Proof Section 97 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Decision Confirming RPD Declination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 applicable standard of review for RAD appeals
  2. 2 whether RPD applied correct test for refugee sur place
  3. 3 credibility of the Appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's multiple negative credibility findings were supported by the record, the RPD reasonably gave little or no weight to documentary and photographic evidence and to alleged sur place activities, there was no new evidence to trigger an oral hearing under s.110(6), and the country/material relied upon did not establish a real likelihood that the Appellants would be identified and persecuted by Chinese authorities; accordingly the Appellants failed to meet the thresholds for Convention refugee or s.97 protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals TB4-03719 and TB4-03720 dismissed; RPD decision confirmed