TB6-07095

TB6-07095

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) (it arose before the RPD decision and was reasonably available), the RPD's adverse credibility findings and document assessments were supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities and were entitled to deference, and on the total record there is no serious possibility of forced sterilization, persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return to China given the country evidence and applicable law; therefore the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-07095
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (redacted); Co Appellant (spouse): Male Appellant (redacted); Minor Appellant (daughter): Minor Female Appellant (redacted); Minor Appellant (son): Minor Male Appellant (redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Forced Abortion and Sterilization, Family Planning Policy Enforcement, New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Findings, Social Compensation Fees
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Forced Abortion and Sterilization Family Planning Policy Enforcement New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4) Irpa) 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (redacted)

Principal Appellant

Male Appellant (redacted)

Co Appellant (spouse)

Minor Female Appellant (redacted)

Minor Appellant (daughter)

Minor Male Appellant (redacted)

Minor Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether RPD credibility findings concerning documents and travel were reasonable and should be upheld
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious possibility of forced sterilization or forced abortion on return to China

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) (it arose before the RPD decision and was reasonably available), the RPD's adverse credibility findings and document assessments were supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities and were entitled to deference, and on the total record there is no serious possibility of forced sterilization, persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return to China given the country evidence and applicable law; therefore the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • RPD decision confirmed; no remittal for redetermination