MB9-08336

MB9-08336

The appeal is dismissed because the adult appellants either retained or had previously held Brazilian permanent resident status and voluntarily lost it by remaining outside Brazil beyond the permitted period; their core allegations were found not credible or insufficiently corroborated; discriminatory treatment in Brazil did not amount to persecution; there is no serious possibility of persecution or protection risk in Haiti or Brazil; accordingly they are excluded under Article 1E and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-08336
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following Refugee Protection Division Decision Rejecting Refugee Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee, Persecution, Gender Related Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Third Country Permanent Resident Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Persecution Gender Related Persecution Credibility Assessment +1 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following Refugee Protection Division Decision Rejecting Refugee Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E due to Brazilian permanent resident status
  2. 2 Whether appellants' evidence (kidnapping, rape, threats, racism) is credible
  3. 3 Whether discrimination in Brazil reached level of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the adult appellants either retained or had previously held Brazilian permanent resident status and voluntarily lost it by remaining outside Brazil beyond the permitted period; their core allegations were found not credible or insufficiently corroborated; discriminatory treatment in Brazil did not amount to persecution; there is no serious possibility of persecution or protection risk in Haiti or Brazil; accordingly they are excluded under Article 1E and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; determination confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • RPD decision dated April 8, 2019 is upheld.