TB7-20085

TB7-20085

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings: the PSB summons was not genuine based on multiple, material format discrepancies and an incorrect legal citation, and the Appellants' account of exiting China using genuine passports and an agent was implausible in light of the Chinese border control system as described in the Jurisprudential Guide; accordingly the Appellants were not shown to be wanted by Chinese authorities and their refugee and protection claims fail.

Citation
TB7-20085
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity, Exit Controls/golden Shield, Use of Jurisprudential Guides
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity Exit Controls/golden Shield Use of Jurisprudential Guides

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PSB summons provided is genuine
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' account of leaving China using genuine passports and an agent is credible
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by not making findings on expropriation once credibility was rejected

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings: the PSB summons was not genuine based on multiple, material format discrepancies and an incorrect legal citation, and the Appellants' account of exiting China using genuine passports and an agent was implausible in light of the Chinese border control system as described in the Jurisprudential Guide; accordingly the Appellants were not shown to be wanted by Chinese authorities and their refugee and protection claims fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • No new evidence admitted and no oral hearing held