TB7-16264

TB7-16264

On a balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to establish they were wanted by the Public Security Bureau for protesting; key credibility deficits (non-production of passports, lack of summons, uncorroborated exit despite Golden Shield/API controls, and insufficient documentary corroboration of protest and demolition) fatally undermined their claim of a real risk of persecution; therefore RAD confirmed RPD and dismissed the appeal under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB7-16264
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (wife): XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (adult Son): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision Confirming RPD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a)
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Corroboration of Documentary Evidence, Exit and Entry Controls, Humanitarian Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Corroboration of Documentary Evidence Exit and Entry Controls Humanitarian Protection 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (wife)

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (adult Son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision Confirming RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether Appellants were credible as to being wanted by Chinese authorities
  2. 2 whether supporting documents corroborate participation in protest and targeting by PSB
  3. 3 whether, objectively, Appellants face a risk of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to establish they were wanted by the Public Security Bureau for protesting; key credibility deficits (non-production of passports, lack of summons, uncorroborated exit despite Golden Shield/API controls, and insufficient documentary corroboration of protest and demolition) fatally undermined their claim of a real risk of persecution; therefore RAD confirmed RPD and dismissed the appeal under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a)

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD’s determination that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and dismisses the appeal