TB3-04277

TB3-04277

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants were excludable under Article 1E because they were permanent residents of Italy with rights and obligations substantially similar to Italians; the RPD reasonably found no well‑founded fear of persecution or serious risk in Italy or Nigeria after transparent adverse credibility findings (identity deception, false initial BoCs, unreliable documents, failure to seek protection in the US); therefore the negative RPD determination was reasonable and was affirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB3-04277
Parties
Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Negative Determination) / Appeal Heard on the Record; No New Evidence and No Oral Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD negative determination confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility Findings, Standard of Review (correctness Vs Reasonableness), Convention Refugee Status, Need for Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility Findings Standard of Review (correctness Vs Reasonableness) Convention Refugee Status Need for Protection

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Negative Determination) / Appeal Heard on the Record; No New Evidence and No Oral Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in law by considering exclusion under Article 1E despite appellants alleging a risk in the Article 1E country (Italy)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by excluding the appellants under Article 1E without adequately considering their alleged risk in Italy
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's finding of exclusion under Article 1E was reasonable given the credibility findings and the evidence of permanent resident status in Italy

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants were excludable under Article 1E because they were permanent residents of Italy with rights and obligations substantially similar to Italians; the RPD reasonably found no well‑founded fear of persecution or serious risk in Italy or Nigeria after transparent adverse credibility findings (identity deception, false initial BoCs, unreliable documents, failure to seek protection in the US); therefore the negative RPD determination was reasonable and was affirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division's decision dated June 11, 2013 that the appellants are not Convention refugees and are excluded under Article 1E
  • No remittal or substitution was ordered