Applicant neither Convention refugee nor person in need of protection

Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”) of Immigration and Refugee Board (“IRB”) dismissed applicant’s appeal of decision of Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) of IRB, and confirmed that she was neither Convention refugee nor person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”). Applicant sought judicial review of decision of RAD. Application dismissed. Circumstances in which RAD may draw adverse inference from failure of party to challenge another party’s evidence were sufficiently canvassed in existing jurisprudence. No serious question of general importance arose in this case. Manner in which applicant left China and entered United States was central issue before RPD. RAD’s approach to issue differed in minor respects from the one taken by RPD, but two tribunals arrived at same conclusion: applicant’s account of her departure from China was not credible. Grounds upon which RAD rejected applicant’s account were not so distinct as to require formal notice. RAD’s analysis did not therefore give rise to breach of procedural fairness.
Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 1720, 2017 FC 388, Simon Fothergill J. (F.C.).