TB7-08408

TB7-08408

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to establish subjective fear and lacked credibility as genuine adherents of the Church of Almighty God; the absence of subjective fear and the credibility findings were determinative and insufficient to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a sur place claim, warranting dismissal of the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-08408
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision; Determination Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Subjective Fear, Sur Place, Credibility Assessment, Use of Fraudulent Documents, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Subjective Fear Sur Place Credibility Assessment Use of Fraudulent Documents Standard of Review

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision; Determination Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants lacked subjective fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' motivation for joining the Church of Almighty God
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to assess and give weight to corroborative documents (PSB summons, hukou certificate, church letter, photographs)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to establish subjective fear and lacked credibility as genuine adherents of the Church of Almighty God; the absence of subjective fear and the credibility findings were determinative and insufficient to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a sur place claim, warranting dismissal of the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and dismisses the appeal.