TB7-13001

TB7-13001

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the principal appellant was wanted by Chinese authorities for protesting and therefore failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution; material credibility defects (absence of passports/travel documents, absence of expected summons, implausibility of exiting China while wanted, insufficient corroborating documentary evidence, and post‑arrival conduct) defeated the claim; family‑planning risks were not established; appeal dismissed.

Citation
TB7-13001
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Family Planning Policy, Documentary Evidence, Smuggling and Exit Controls, Standard of Review, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Summons and Police Practice
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Country Conditions Family Planning Policy Documentary Evidence +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether appellants met burden to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 credibility of oral testimony and documentary evidence (passports, travel documents, complaint letter)
  3. 3 whether PSB issued a summons or otherwise wanted principal appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the principal appellant was wanted by Chinese authorities for protesting and therefore failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution; material credibility defects (absence of passports/travel documents, absence of expected summons, implausibility of exiting China while wanted, insufficient corroborating documentary evidence, and post‑arrival conduct) defeated the claim; family‑planning risks were not established; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

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