TB9-20189

TB9-20189

The RAD confirmed the RPD's core findings: the Appellant is not credible based on material inconsistencies, omissions and a fraudulent PSB summons; the fines are penalties under a law of general application and not persecution; the RPD applied acceptable formulations of the legal standard for sections 96 and 97 IRPA; therefore the Appellant did not establish refugee status or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB9-20189
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Family Planning Policy (one Child/two Child), Fines/social Compensation Fees, Documentary Evidence Fraud, Standard of Proof Under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Family Planning Policy (one Child/two Child) Fines/social Compensation Fees Documentary Evidence Fraud Standard of Proof Under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is credible about being wanted and threatened by Chinese authorities
  2. 2 Whether the PSB summons submitted is genuine
  3. 3 Whether fines for violating family planning policy constitute persecution or are laws of general application

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's core findings: the Appellant is not credible based on material inconsistencies, omissions and a fraudulent PSB summons; the fines are penalties under a law of general application and not persecution; the RPD applied acceptable formulations of the legal standard for sections 96 and 97 IRPA; therefore the Appellant did not establish refugee status or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA