TC3-01563

TC3-01563

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found that, on balance of probabilities and given the objective country evidence, the appellants can practise Hoa Hao in Vietnam if not politically active, they are not credibly shown to be wanted or at serious risk of persecution, and they do not meet the tests in IRPA ss.96 or 97.

Citation
TC3-01563
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision); No Oral Hearing Held Due to No New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Sur Place, Religious Practice Recognition, Objective Country Evidence, Risk of Torture or Cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Religious Freedom Credibility Assessment Well Founded Fear of Persecution Sur Place +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision); No Oral Hearing Held Due to No New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97
  3. 3 Credibility of the appellants and consistency of testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found that, on balance of probabilities and given the objective country evidence, the appellants can practise Hoa Hao in Vietnam if not politically active, they are not credibly shown to be wanted or at serious risk of persecution, and they do not meet the tests in IRPA ss.96 or 97.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld
  • No oral hearing held (no new evidence was presented)