MB9-10361

MB9-10361

The RAD confirmed the RPD's conclusion that the adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E because they had access to Brazilian permanent residence, failed to acquire it within the prescribed formalities, Brazilian permanent residents possess rights substantially similar to nationals, and on the balance of Zeng factors (including voluntary departure, inability to establish return, and credibility findings) exclusion is warranted; the minor appellant's claim was not challenged and was correctly rejected by the RPD.

Citation
MB9-10361
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant (common Law Spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Reasons and Decision (rad Decision on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E and that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Third Country Permanent Residence, Zeng Factors, Credibility Assessment, Canada's International Obligations, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Law Article 1 E Exclusion Third Country Permanent Residence Zeng Factors Credibility Assessment +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant (common Law Spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Reasons and Decision (rad Decision on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adult appellants are excluded from the Refugee Convention under Article 1E due to access to Brazilian permanent residence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in applying the Zeng factors when appellants had not obtained permanent residence
  3. 3 Whether the minor appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's conclusion that the adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E because they had access to Brazilian permanent residence, failed to acquire it within the prescribed formalities, Brazilian permanent residents possess rights substantially similar to nationals, and on the balance of Zeng factors (including voluntary departure, inability to establish return, and credibility findings) exclusion is warranted; the minor appellant's claim was not challenged and was correctly rejected by the RPD.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E and that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Determination confirmed that the adult appellants are excluded from the application of the Convention under Article 1E