TC0-09183

TC0-09183

The RAD allowed the appeal and substituted the RPD decision because, on independent assessment of updated country condition evidence and the Appellants' credible evidence of genuine Protestant practice, the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion in China (particularly Fujian), state protection and internal flight are unavailable, and therefore they are Convention refugees under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TC0-09183
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant (PA); Appellant: Associate Appellant (AA)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (substitution Pursuant to Paragraph 111(1)(b) Irpa)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persecution, Religion, Family Planning Policy, Country Conditions, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Persecution Religion Family Planning Policy +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (PA)

Appellant

Associate Appellant (AA)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (substitution Pursuant to Paragraph 111(1)(b) Irpa)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants face a well-founded fear of persecution for practising Protestant Christianity in China
  2. 2 Whether state-sanctioned religious practice in China would protect the Appellants or whether state repression makes return unsafe
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of China’s family planning policies (mandatory IUD/forced abortion/sterilization) amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and substituted the RPD decision because, on independent assessment of updated country condition evidence and the Appellants' credible evidence of genuine Protestant practice, the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion in China (particularly Fujian), state protection and internal flight are unavailable, and therefore they are Convention refugees under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and substituted decision rendered: Appellants recognized as Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act