TB4-05987

TB4-05987

On an independent assessment the RAD found the summons document not genuine, gave limited weight to supporting letters from China, accepted Canadian church letters only as proof of attendance, and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant did not practice Christianity in China and does not face more than a mere chance of persecution; therefore the RPD determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB4-05987
Parties
Appellant: XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Board Rad) / Final RAD Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Country Conditions, Documentary Evidence, Sur Place
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Country Conditions Documentary Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Board Rad) / Final RAD Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is a credible witness and a genuine practitioner of Christianity in China
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant is wanted by Chinese authorities
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed the Appellant's supporting documentation

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent assessment the RAD found the summons document not genuine, gave limited weight to supporting letters from China, accepted Canadian church letters only as proof of attendance, and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant did not practice Christianity in China and does not face more than a mere chance of persecution; therefore the RPD determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD determination as per s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • The appeal is dismissed