TB7-05193

TB7-05193

After independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD: available evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution from social compensation fees or coercive sterilization in Guangdong or appellants' locality; Article 280 punishes fraudulent documentation as a neutral law of general application and is not persecutory in these circumstances; appellants voluntarily chose fraud to avoid fines rather than to evade persecution; appeal dismissed.

Citation
TB7-05193
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Family Planning Policy, Social Compensation Fees, Coercive Birth Control Measures, Fraudulent Documents (article 280), Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Social Compensation Fees Coercive Birth Control Measures Fraudulent Documents (article 280) Standard of Review

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of social compensation fees for out-of-plan children constitutes persecution
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a real risk of coercive birth control measures including forced sterilization
  3. 3 Whether punishment under Article 280 for using fraudulent sterilization certificates is persecutory

Ratio Decidendi

After independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD: available evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution from social compensation fees or coercive sterilization in Guangdong or appellants' locality; Article 280 punishes fraudulent documentation as a neutral law of general application and is not persecutory in these circumstances; appellants voluntarily chose fraud to avoid fines rather than to evade persecution; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • The appeal is dismissed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA