TC1-12335

TC1-12335

The RAD concluded the RPD erred by insufficiently assessing the Principal Appellant’s cumulative and intersectional profile and forward‑looking risk; on the whole record the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout China owing to the PA’s status as a single mother with diverse SOGIESC and no effective family or community protection, and adequate state protection and any IFA are not available; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the Appellants are Convention Refugees.

Citation
TC1-12335
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative for the Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Principal Appellant: Victor E Pilnitz; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (replaced RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention Refugees
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation (sogiesc), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), State Protection, Intersectionality, Child Protection, Family Unity, Persecution, Trafficking
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Sexual Orientation (sogiesc) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) State Protection Intersectionality Child Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative for the Associate Appellant

Victor E Pilnitz

Counsel for the Principal Appellant

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (replaced RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the forward‑looking risk of persecution
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (Harbin or Jinan) was viable
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available at an operational level

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred by insufficiently assessing the Principal Appellant’s cumulative and intersectional profile and forward‑looking risk; on the whole record the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout China owing to the PA’s status as a single mother with diverse SOGIESC and no effective family or community protection, and adequate state protection and any IFA are not available; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the Appellants are Convention Refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention Refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; substitute decision that the Appellants are Convention Refugees