TB8-18187

TB8-18187

The RAD concluded the RPD committed material errors: it wrongly inferred continuous hiding despite the appellants’ testimony and BOC ambiguity; it erred in treating exit as implausible by conflating local FPC interest with national PSB surveillance without evidentiary basis; and it failed to assess and question the appellants on central FPP documents. Those errors undermined the RPD’s credibility and well‑founded fear findings and required remittal to the RPD for redetermination and directed questioning on FPP matters.

Citation
TB8-18187
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / RAD Decision Remitting to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c)
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Well Founded Fear, Family Planning Policy, Procedural Fairness, Documentary Evidence, Exit Controls, Standard of Review, Remittal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Well Founded Fear Family Planning Policy Procedural Fairness Documentary Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / RAD Decision Remitting to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment regarding periods of hiding and the second child’s birth
  2. 2 Whether it was implausible that the appellants could have left China undetected given alleged interest by local Family Planning Committee versus national PSB
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to assess Family Planning Policy (FPP) documents and failed to question appellants about those documents

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD committed material errors: it wrongly inferred continuous hiding despite the appellants’ testimony and BOC ambiguity; it erred in treating exit as implausible by conflating local FPC interest with national PSB surveillance without evidentiary basis; and it failed to assess and question the appellants on central FPP documents. Those errors undermined the RPD’s credibility and well‑founded fear findings and required remittal to the RPD for redetermination and directed questioning on FPP matters.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c)

Orders

  • Allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Direct the RPD to question the appellants on their Family Planning Policy related documents and on the circumstances of the second child’s birth and related local FPP procedures during redetermination