TB7-03245

TB7-03245

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the fines and enforcement for violating China’s family planning rules are civil penalties under a law of general application and, on the evidence, were not applied in a persecutory or discriminatory manner; the Appellants failed to prove subjective fear or a serious possibility of persecution or risk under s.97(1)(b), and s.108(4) did not provide relief; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB7-03245
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Family Planning Penalties, Persecution Versus Prosecution, Standard of Review, Compelling Reasons (s.108), S.97(1)(b) Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Penalties Persecution Versus Prosecution Standard of Review Compelling Reasons (s.108) S.97(1)(b) Risk Assessment

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fines and enforcement for breach of Chinese family planning rules constitute persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants demonstrated subjective fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment under s.97(1)(b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD misapplied law including s.108(4) (compelling reasons) and erred in fact or mixed law and fact

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the fines and enforcement for violating China’s family planning rules are civil penalties under a law of general application and, on the evidence, were not applied in a persecutory or discriminatory manner; the Appellants failed to prove subjective fear or a serious possibility of persecution or risk under s.97(1)(b), and s.108(4) did not provide relief; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.