TB9-15355

TB9-15355

The RAD found the RPD erred in concluding the Principal Appellant was excluded under article 1E because her UAE status was inherently vulnerable and dependent on a sponsor (husband) and did not confer substantially the same rights as nationals; accordingly the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee with Iraq as the country of consideration. The RAD confirmed the RPD's conclusion that the Minor Appellant has not established a section 96 or 97 risk in the UAE. Certain pieces of new evidence were admitted as they post‑date the RPD decision and were credible and relevant; others were excluded for failure to meet s.110(4)/Rule 29 tests.

Citation
TB9-15355
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Substituted Decision Issued)
Outcome
Split decision: Principal Appellant appeal allowed and substituted decision that she is a Convention refugee; Minor Appellant appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Status, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa; RAD Rule 29), Country Conditions, Best Interests of the Child, Family Unity and Dependent Sponsorship
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Human Rights Law Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Status Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa; RAD Rule 29) Country Conditions +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Substituted Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant was excluded from protection under article 1E of the Refugee Convention by virtue of status in the UAE
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee with Iraq as the country of consideration
  3. 3 Whether the Minor Appellant faces a section 96 or 97 risk in the UAE

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in concluding the Principal Appellant was excluded under article 1E because her UAE status was inherently vulnerable and dependent on a sponsor (husband) and did not confer substantially the same rights as nationals; accordingly the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee with Iraq as the country of consideration. The RAD confirmed the RPD's conclusion that the Minor Appellant has not established a section 96 or 97 risk in the UAE. Certain pieces of new evidence were admitted as they post‑date the RPD decision and were credible and relevant; others were excluded for failure to meet s.110(4)/Rule 29 tests.

Court Disposition

Split decision: Principal Appellant appeal allowed and substituted decision that she is a Convention refugee; Minor Appellant appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Principal Appellant appeal allowed; Principal Appellant declared a Convention refugee.
  • Minor Appellant appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirming no s.96 or s.97 risk in UAE is upheld.