TB4-11571

TB4-11571

The RAD confirmed the RPD because multiple, documented credibility defects on core issues (contradictory forms and testimony, implausible explanations about passports, exit, hiding and communications, and lack of corroboration) supported the conclusion that the appellants were not genuine Falun Gong practitioners and therefore did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection on return to China.

Citation
TB4-11571
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Sur Place Claim, Persecution for Falun Gong, Standard of Review, IRPA S.111(1)(a), Exit Controls and Passport Procurement, Electronic Surveillance and Communications
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Sur Place Claim Persecution for Falun Gong Standard of Review IRPA S.111(1)(a) +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX

Appellant Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 appropriate standard of review for RAD (hybrid review/substitution)
  3. 3 whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because multiple, documented credibility defects on core issues (contradictory forms and testimony, implausible explanations about passports, exit, hiding and communications, and lack of corroboration) supported the conclusion that the appellants were not genuine Falun Gong practitioners and therefore did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection on return to China.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA