TB6-02591

TB6-02591

The RAD upheld the RPD because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants' testimony and documentation were not credible or probative (including inconsistencies and probable fraudulent documents), the only new evidence admitted (obstetrical letter) did not alter findings of fact, and the change in Chinese family planning law to permit two children removed any serious possibility of persecution on return; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-02591
Parties
Appellant (principal, Female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Male): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
One‑child/family Planning Policy, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Remittal and Standard of Review (s.111), Misrepresentation/fraud
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law One‑child/family Planning Policy Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Remittal and Standard of Review (s.111) +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal, Female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether appellants' evidence and documentation are credible
  3. 3 Whether change in Chinese family planning law removes risk of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants' testimony and documentation were not credible or probative (including inconsistencies and probable fraudulent documents), the only new evidence admitted (obstetrical letter) did not alter findings of fact, and the change in Chinese family planning law to permit two children removed any serious possibility of persecution on return; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • RAD upholds RPD decision and dismisses appeal
  • No remittal to RPD under s.111(1)(c)