TB5-04812

TB5-04812

RAD, applying the hybrid-appeal standard, reviewed the whole record, concurred with the RPD that key credibility flaws were significant (absence of contemporaneous medical corroboration, inconsistent testimony about awareness of illegality, implausibility of exiting on passports while allegedly pursued by PSB, and lack of persuasive provenance for the chuanpiao), found the sur place claim unproven, and therefore confirmed the RPD's refusal of refugee protection.

Citation
TB5-04812
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claims, Documentary Corroboration, Negative Inference, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claims Documentary Corroboration Negative Inference Standard of Review

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' supporting documents (chuanpiao and dismissal notices) were entitled to probative weight
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants established a sur place claim independent of their China testimony

Ratio Decidendi

RAD, applying the hybrid-appeal standard, reviewed the whole record, concurred with the RPD that key credibility flaws were significant (absence of contemporaneous medical corroboration, inconsistent testimony about awareness of illegality, implausibility of exiting on passports while allegedly pursued by PSB, and lack of persuasive provenance for the chuanpiao), found the sur place claim unproven, and therefore confirmed the RPD's refusal of refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of IRPA