TB9-21512

TB9-21512

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings and independently assessed updated country documentation showing a predominant trend toward fines and relaxed enforcement of family planning measures; combined with insufficient corroboration of genuine Christian belief or any evidence that religious activity had attracted Chinese authorities, the appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution, no new evidence under s.110(4) was filed, and the RPD decision was confirmed and appeals dismissed.

Citation
TB9-21512
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Disposition)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution, Family Planning Policy, Forced Sterilization, Sur Place Claim, New Evidence Under S.110(4)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution Family Planning Policy Forced Sterilization +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution due to violation of China’s two-child policy (forced sterilisation/penalties)
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution for practising Christianity

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings and independently assessed updated country documentation showing a predominant trend toward fines and relaxed enforcement of family planning measures; combined with insufficient corroboration of genuine Christian belief or any evidence that religious activity had attracted Chinese authorities, the appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution, no new evidence under s.110(4) was filed, and the RPD decision was confirmed and appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act