TB4-06362

TB4-06362

RAD held that (a) the principal Appellant and the minor Appellants were excluded from refugee protection under Article 1(E) because they had status in Italy substantially similar to nationals as of the last day of the RPD hearing; (b) the associated Appellant did not have status substantially similar to Italian nationals because her permesso di soggiorno was temporary and conditioned on income/employment, and therefore she is not excluded; (c) none of the proposed new evidence met the RAD's combined test (s.110(4) plus credibility, relevance and materiality) and was therefore inadmissible; (d) the RAD applies a modified Raza approach to admissibility of new evidence and performs a hybrid...

Citation
TB4-06362
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (daisy): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (marian): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (chantel): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Disposition and Reasons on Appeal (decision of January 28, 2015)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed in part: principal Appellant and minor Appellants excluded and appeals dismissed; associated Appellant found not excluded and matter remitted for redetermination.
Legal Topics
Article 1(e) Exclusion, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Standard of Review / Role of RAD, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1(e) Exclusion Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Standard of Review / Role of RAD Convention Refugee Determination

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (daisy)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (marian)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (chantel)

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Disposition and Reasons on Appeal (decision of January 28, 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1(E) due to Italian residency status
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Proper date for assessing third‑country status (date of hearing v. date of decision)

Ratio Decidendi

RAD held that (a) the principal Appellant and the minor Appellants were excluded from refugee protection under Article 1(E) because they had status in Italy substantially similar to nationals as of the last day of the RPD hearing; (b) the associated Appellant did not have status substantially similar to Italian nationals because her permesso di soggiorno was temporary and conditioned on income/employment, and therefore she is not excluded; (c) none of the proposed new evidence met the RAD's combined test (s.110(4) plus credibility, relevance and materiality) and was therefore inadmissible; (d) the RAD applies a modified Raza approach to admissibility of new evidence and performs a hybrid...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed in part: principal Appellant and minor Appellants excluded and appeals dismissed; associated Appellant found not excluded and matter remitted for redetermination.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA, confirm RPD decision that the principal Appellant and the minor Appellants are excluded from refugee protection; their appeals dismissed.
  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, set aside the RPD determination that the associated Appellant is not a Convention refugee and refer her claim to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.