TB7-06458

TB7-06458

The RAD affirms the RPD because cumulative adverse credibility findings—supported by objective country and documentary evidence (Golden Shield/APIS/exit controls), inconsistencies and probable fabrication of key documents (summons, hukou, arrest notice), and an unexplained two‑year delay—render the Appellants' allegations not proven on a balance of probabilities and defeat both their original and sur place refugee claims.

Citation
TB7-06458
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claims, Documentary Forgery, Delay in Claiming Protection, Exit Controls and Border Security, Hukou (household Registration), Summons Procedures
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claims Documentary Forgery Delay in Claiming Protection +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding exit from China, delay in claiming, and authenticity of documents
  3. 3 Whether documentary and country evidence rebut the Appellants' allegations of persecution for practising Christianity

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD because cumulative adverse credibility findings—supported by objective country and documentary evidence (Golden Shield/APIS/exit controls), inconsistencies and probable fabrication of key documents (summons, hukou, arrest notice), and an unexplained two‑year delay—render the Appellants' allegations not proven on a balance of probabilities and defeat both their original and sur place refugee claims.

Court Disposition

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