TB9-01407

TB9-01407

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to properly assess objective country conditions and the Sterilization Notices and by overemphasizing the likelihood of mere fines; credible evidence including the Sterilization Notices and corroborative country information established that the Principal Appellant faces a real risk of persecution (forced sterilization/abortion) and no viable internal flight alternative exists; accordingly the RAD substituted its own determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-01407
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (irpa) / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed for the Principal Appellant; appeals dismissed for the Associate Appellants
Legal Topics
Family Planning Policy, Forced Abortion and Sterilization, Credibility Assessment, Social Compensation Fee (fine), Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Admission of New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Family Planning Policy Forced Abortion and Sterilization Credibility Assessment Social Compensation Fee (fine) +3 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (irpa) / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant's testimony was credible
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by failing to assess the Sterilization Notice properly
  3. 3 Whether country conditions in Guangdong create a risk of forced abortion/sterilization amounting to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to properly assess objective country conditions and the Sterilization Notices and by overemphasizing the likelihood of mere fines; credible evidence including the Sterilization Notices and corroborative country information established that the Principal Appellant faces a real risk of persecution (forced sterilization/abortion) and no viable internal flight alternative exists; accordingly the RAD substituted its own determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed for the Principal Appellant; appeals dismissed for the Associate Appellants

Orders

  • RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA
  • Appeals dismissed against the Associate Appellants; RPD decision upheld that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA