TB8-06855

TB8-06855

The RPD did not err: recent documentary evidence demonstrates a continuing trend away from forced sterilisation toward financial penalties and administrative measures, men are unlikely to be targeted, the Principal Appellant therefore does not face a serious possibility of persecution on return, the Minor Appellants are documented and not at risk of persecution or deprivation of benefits, and the RAD properly disclosed and relied on the updated NDP material; accordingly the RPD's decision is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
TB8-06855
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Forced Sterilisation, Credibility Assessment, National Documentation Package (ndp), Disclosure of New Evidence, Risk to Children/social Benefits
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Planning Policy Well Founded Fear of Persecution Forced Sterilisation Credibility Assessment National Documentation Package (ndp) +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant was credible
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution on return to China (forced sterilisation or other penalties)
  3. 3 Whether the Minor Appellants would be discriminated against or deprived of social benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not err: recent documentary evidence demonstrates a continuing trend away from forced sterilisation toward financial penalties and administrative measures, men are unlikely to be targeted, the Principal Appellant therefore does not face a serious possibility of persecution on return, the Minor Appellants are documented and not at risk of persecution or deprivation of benefits, and the RAD properly disclosed and relied on the updated NDP material; accordingly the RPD's decision is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA