TB6-09052

TB6-09052

On the totality of the evidence the RAD found no error in the RPD’s conclusion that appellants failed to establish a risk of persecution: enforcement against out-of-plan births in Jiangsu is limited to fines (social maintenance fees) which are laws of general application and not persecutory, and the appellants’ asserted future risk of having more than two children is speculative and insufficient to establish refugee or protection status.

Citation
TB6-09052
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Family Planning Policy, Two Child Policy, Social Maintenance Fees, Standard of Review, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Two Child Policy Social Maintenance Fees Standard of Review Credibility

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face persecution on return to China due to family planning policies and potential IUD requirement
  2. 2 Whether fines (social maintenance fees) for out-of-plan births constitute persecution or cruel and unusual punishment
  3. 3 Whether the RAD must apply the correctness standard to RPD findings of fact/mixed fact and law absent credibility issues

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence the RAD found no error in the RPD’s conclusion that appellants failed to establish a risk of persecution: enforcement against out-of-plan births in Jiangsu is limited to fines (social maintenance fees) which are laws of general application and not persecutory, and the appellants’ asserted future risk of having more than two children is speculative and insufficient to establish refugee or protection status.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA