MB9-13077

MB9-13077

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because the Article 1E exclusion applies to the adult appellants after analysis of the Zeng factors and because the evidence does not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk for the adults in Haiti or for the minor in Brazil; credibility and factual findings on risk were appropriately assessed and not displaced on review.

Citation
MB9-13077
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility and Risk Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Credibility and Risk Assessment Standard of Review

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in applying Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention
  2. 2 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because the Article 1E exclusion applies to the adult appellants after analysis of the Zeng factors and because the evidence does not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk for the adults in Haiti or for the minor in Brazil; credibility and factual findings on risk were appropriately assessed and not displaced on review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The RPD determination is confirmed that the appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  • Appeal dismissed