TB9-21684

TB9-21684

The RAD found that the RPD erred by imposing an unrealistically high doctrinal knowledge standard, by wrongly discounting an apparently authentic unsworn letter, and by improperly assessing the sur place and internal flight issues; on a balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner who would face persecution in China, so the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-21684
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Minor Child: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal RAD Substituted Determination and Reasons
Outcome
Appeals allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees under section 111(1)(b) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Claim, Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution, Sur Place Claim, Evidentiary Weight, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Claim Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution Sur Place Claim Evidentiary Weight +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal RAD Substituted Determination and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD improperly assessed credibility by testing theological knowledge rather than sincerity of belief
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assigning no weight to an unsworn letter of support
  3. 3 Whether the sur place claim required evidence that Chinese authorities were aware of practice in Canada

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that the RPD erred by imposing an unrealistically high doctrinal knowledge standard, by wrongly discounting an apparently authentic unsworn letter, and by improperly assessing the sur place and internal flight issues; on a balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner who would face persecution in China, so the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees under section 111(1)(b) of IRPA

Orders

  • Set aside the determination of the Refugee Protection Division and substitute a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act