TB8-30847

TB8-30847

The principal Appellant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner because her demonstrated knowledge and commitment were inconsistent with a practice that is knowledge-based; consequently she failed to establish a sur place claim that Chinese authorities are aware of her activities, undermining the adult Appellants' claims regarding China; the minor Appellant failed to establish a forward‑looking risk in Mexico; therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB8-30847
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Daughter Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Sur Place, Genuineness of Religious Practice, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Risk to Minor, Family Unity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Sur Place Genuineness of Religious Practice Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Risk to Minor Family Unity

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Daughter Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner
  2. 2 Whether the principal Appellant established a sur place claim against China
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its internal flight alternative finding for Mexico (not reached)

Ratio Decidendi

The principal Appellant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner because her demonstrated knowledge and commitment were inconsistent with a practice that is knowledge-based; consequently she failed to establish a sur place claim that Chinese authorities are aware of her activities, undermining the adult Appellants' claims regarding China; the minor Appellant failed to establish a forward‑looking risk in Mexico; therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection