TB7-14157

TB7-14157

RAD confirmed RPD: appellants lacked credibility because they produced two birth certificates that were not genuine and other inconsistent/documentary issues; on balance of probabilities appellants have one child in China, not three; no persuasive evidence they were being sought or would be sterilized or forced to undergo compulsory contraception that would amount to persecution; principal appellant's asserted underground church membership in China was not proven and Christian practice in Hebei province generally does not present a serious possibility of persecution; new medical evidence admitted was not material to change outcome and oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA not warranted;...

Citation
TB7-14157
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final RAD Decision Confirming RPD Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Family Planning Policy, Religious Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Ability to Exit Country, Document Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Family Planning Policy Religious Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence +2 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final RAD Decision Confirming RPD Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether family planning practices in China amount to persecution in this case
  3. 3 Whether appellants would be forced to undergo sterilization or mandatory contraception

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed RPD: appellants lacked credibility because they produced two birth certificates that were not genuine and other inconsistent/documentary issues; on balance of probabilities appellants have one child in China, not three; no persuasive evidence they were being sought or would be sterilized or forced to undergo compulsory contraception that would amount to persecution; principal appellant's asserted underground church membership in China was not proven and Christian practice in Hebei province generally does not present a serious possibility of persecution; new medical evidence admitted was not material to change outcome and oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA not warranted;...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Medical document dated July 6, 2017 admitted as new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA