TB8-14134

TB8-14134

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because on a balance of probabilities the subpoena was found to be fraudulent and the Associate Appellant provided false or inconsistent information on a prior US visa application, justifying negative credibility inferences that rebut the presumption of truthfulness and leave the Appellants unable to prove they are wanted by Chinese authorities or face a risk of persecution; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-14134
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Determination on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity, Fraudulent Documentation, Misrepresentation to Foreign Government, Standard of Review, Corroboration, S.111(1)(a) IRPA Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity Fraudulent Documentation Misrepresentation to Foreign Government +3 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 XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Child Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Determination on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subpoena (chuanpiao) submitted by the Appellants is authentic
  2. 2 Whether the Associate Appellant misrepresented facts on a US visa application and whether that affects overall credibility
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by failing to refer to or weigh certain documents

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because on a balance of probabilities the subpoena was found to be fraudulent and the Associate Appellant provided false or inconsistent information on a prior US visa application, justifying negative credibility inferences that rebut the presumption of truthfulness and leave the Appellants unable to prove they are wanted by Chinese authorities or face a risk of persecution; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA