TB6-04328

TB6-04328

On review the RAD found no persuasive evidence on the balance of probabilities that the appellants would be subjected to forced sterilization, forced abortion or other persecution on return to China; the 2015 change to a two-child policy undercuts the risk and appellants' fears were speculative, therefore the RPD's decision that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed

Citation
TB6-04328
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Family Planning Policy Enforcement, Forced Sterilization and Abortion, Refugee Status Determination, Credibility Findings, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Family Planning Policy Enforcement Forced Sterilization and Abortion Refugee Status Determination Credibility Findings +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a real risk of forced sterilization, forced abortion, or other persecution on return to China under family planning policies
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings and whether those findings deprived RAD of the ability to correctly determine the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the 2015 nationwide change from a one-child to two-child policy changes the risk assessment for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

On review the RAD found no persuasive evidence on the balance of probabilities that the appellants would be subjected to forced sterilization, forced abortion or other persecution on return to China; the 2015 change to a two-child policy undercuts the risk and appellants' fears were speculative, therefore the RPD's decision that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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