TB5-02708

TB5-02708

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellant failed to establish a sur place claim: the RPD credibility finding that he is not a genuine practicing Catholic in Canada was unchallenged and persuasive, the Appellant's failure to claim asylum in Japan and evidence of re-availment undermined subjective fear, and the Minister's new documentary evidence was admissible and bolstered those findings; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-02708
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent/intervener: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Intervener)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Final Decision Confirming RPD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Sur Place, Credibility, Admissibility of Evidence, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Sur Place Credibility +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Intervener)

Respondent/intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Final Decision Confirming RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should conduct a hybrid de novo assessment or defer to RPD credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant's sur place claim was rejected solely because he was not Catholic in China
  3. 3 Credibility of appellant regarding practice of Catholicism in Canada

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellant failed to establish a sur place claim: the RPD credibility finding that he is not a genuine practicing Catholic in Canada was unchallenged and persuasive, the Appellant's failure to claim asylum in Japan and evidence of re-availment undermined subjective fear, and the Minister's new documentary evidence was admissible and bolstered those findings; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated February 9, 2015 is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act