TB7-15991

TB7-15991

RAD confirmed RPD: appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on return because their credibility was undermined by a late and unpersuasive religious claim, implausible delay in leaving China, failure to claim asylum in the United States, and materially inconsistent or likely non‑genuine documentary evidence; objective country evidence for Guangdong did not show a real risk of forced sterilization and fines are non‑persecutory.

Citation
TB7-15991
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Family Planning Policy, Religious Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Safe Third Country/asylum Shopping, Plausibility Findings, Risk of Forced Sterilization
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Religious Persecution Credibility Assessment Documentary Evidence Authenticity Safe Third Country/asylum Shopping +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant is a genuine adherent of Roman Catholicism and at risk of religious persecution in China
  2. 2 Whether delay in leaving China undermines credibility of claimed fear
  3. 3 Whether failure to claim asylum in the United States permits a negative inference

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed RPD: appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on return because their credibility was undermined by a late and unpersuasive religious claim, implausible delay in leaving China, failure to claim asylum in the United States, and materially inconsistent or likely non‑genuine documentary evidence; objective country evidence for Guangdong did not show a real risk of forced sterilization and fines are non‑persecutory.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 21, 2017 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA