TB7-24035

TB7-24035

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and objective indicators: land disputes of the type described are ordinarily targeted at local officials rather than treated as political opposition, the Appellants were able to depart China on their own passports contrary to being wanted, their August 2016 Canadian visa applications and admissions of intent to claim before the 2017 protests undermined their account, and the corroborative documents did not establish they were wanted or had engaged in political protest; accordingly the RPD did not err in finding no nexus to a Convention ground and rejecting...

Citation
TB7-24035
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Political Opinion, Land Expropriation Disputes, Exit Controls and Travel History, Corroborative Evidence, Timing of Visa Applications
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Political Opinion Land Expropriation Disputes Exit Controls and Travel History Corroborative Evidence +1 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 XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' activities amounted to political activity giving rise to Convention protection
  3. 3 Whether the timing of Canadian visitor visa applications undermines credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and objective indicators: land disputes of the type described are ordinarily targeted at local officials rather than treated as political opposition, the Appellants were able to depart China on their own passports contrary to being wanted, their August 2016 Canadian visa applications and admissions of intent to claim before the 2017 protests undermined their account, and the corroborative documents did not establish they were wanted or had engaged in political protest; accordingly the RPD did not err in finding no nexus to a Convention ground and rejecting...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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