TB6-07418

TB6-07418

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility and evidentiary findings on a balance of probabilities — fraudulent summons, unexplained absence of medical records, evolving and evasive testimony, and inadequate knowledge of Falun Gong — and therefore concluded the Appellant failed to prove a well‑founded fear or need for protection; appeal dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-07418
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (redetermination by Rad) / Final Disposition on Third Redetermination of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Judicial Review, Sur Place, Persecution, Religious Practice (falun Gong), Family Planning
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Documentary Evidence Authenticity Judicial Review 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (redetermination by Rad) / Final Disposition on Third Redetermination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant established a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of Falun Gong
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's summons document is authentic

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility and evidentiary findings on a balance of probabilities — fraudulent summons, unexplained absence of medical records, evolving and evasive testimony, and inadequate knowledge of Falun Gong — and therefore concluded the Appellant failed to prove a well‑founded fear or need for protection; appeal dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; RPD decision denying refugee protection confirmed