TB5-11670

TB5-11670

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the documentary material relied upon was in the record, the totality of evidence shows mixed implementation of family planning policy with Guangdong historically favoring fines (social compensation fees) over forced sterilization, and there is no serious possibility that the appellants would face forced abortion or sterilization on return; credibility findings and negative inferences drawn by the panel were upheld, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-11670
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Forced Sterilization, Forced Abortion, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Country Documentation, Remittal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Forced Sterilization Forced Abortion Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Country Documentation +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 4 Authorities cited 6 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 Under IRPA / Appeal Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of appellants
  2. 2 Subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Objective component of well-founded fear (risk of forced abortion/sterilization)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the documentary material relied upon was in the record, the totality of evidence shows mixed implementation of family planning policy with Guangdong historically favoring fines (social compensation fees) over forced sterilization, and there is no serious possibility that the appellants would face forced abortion or sterilization on return; credibility findings and negative inferences drawn by the panel were upheld, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No remittal to RPD; no remedial relief granted