TB9-22230

TB9-22230

The appeals are dismissed because the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on return to China: documentary evidence shows fines (social compensation fees) are the typical enforcement measure in Liaoning and sterilization is uncommon and declining; fines do not constitute persecution in this context; the Minor Appellants have no independent well-founded fear; and no new evidence was submitted to trigger an oral hearing; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-22230
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Spousal Appellant; Appellant: First Minor Appellant; Appellant: Second Minor Appellant; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reconsideration of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Forced Sterilization, Family Planning Policy, Two Child Policy, Country Conditions, New Evidence / Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Forced Sterilization Family Planning Policy Two Child Policy Country Conditions New Evidence / Oral Hearing

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Spousal Appellant

Appellant

First Minor Appellant

Appellant

Second Minor Appellant

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reconsideration of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution on return to China
  2. 2 Whether Minor Appellants have independent well-founded fears
  3. 3 Whether RPD erred in its documentary analysis regarding fines and sterilization

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on return to China: documentary evidence shows fines (social compensation fees) are the typical enforcement measure in Liaoning and sterilization is uncommon and declining; fines do not constitute persecution in this context; the Minor Appellants have no independent well-founded fear; and no new evidence was submitted to trigger an oral hearing; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the Refugee Protection Division decision is confirmed