TB7-12830

TB7-12830

The panel found the subpoena to be fraudulent after detailed comparison with official samples, concluded appellants were not flagged at exit and therefore not wanted by Chinese authorities, found appellants' testimony and corroboration about Falun Gong were vague and insufficient, and on the balance of probabilities these adverse credibility findings required dismissal of the appeals and confirmation of the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-12830
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Redetermination After Federal Court Remand / Decision on Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following Remand From Federal Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Fraudulent Document, Sur Place Claim, Exit Controls/golden Shield, Judicial Review Remand
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Fraudulent Document Sur Place Claim Exit Controls/golden Shield +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Redetermination After Federal Court Remand / Decision on Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following Remand From Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether the subpoena submitted by appellants is genuine or fraudulent
  3. 3 Whether appellants would have been flagged under China's Golden Shield/exit controls

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the subpoena to be fraudulent after detailed comparison with official samples, concluded appellants were not flagged at exit and therefore not wanted by Chinese authorities, found appellants' testimony and corroboration about Falun Gong were vague and insufficient, and on the balance of probabilities these adverse credibility findings required dismissal of the appeals and confirmation of the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RPD decision is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed