TB5-06651

TB5-06651

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because, on independent review of the record, the appellants' credibility was undermined by a significant BoC omission and by the implausibility of their alleged undetected exit from China given objective evidence of integrated surveillance and exit controls; the appellants failed to establish genuine Falun Gong practice or a credible sur place claim and thus did not meet the definition of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB5-06651
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Sur Place, Basis of Claim Omissions, Exit Controls/golden Shield, Standard of Review/deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Sur Place Basis of Claim Omissions Exit Controls/golden Shield +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether omissions in the Basis of Claim warranted negative credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether it was plausible that appellants exited China undetected on their passports

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because, on independent review of the record, the appellants' credibility was undermined by a significant BoC omission and by the implausibility of their alleged undetected exit from China given objective evidence of integrated surveillance and exit controls; the appellants failed to establish genuine Falun Gong practice or a credible sur place claim and thus did not meet the definition of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; appeals dismissed.