MB9-11069

MB9-11069

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the principal appellant had held Brazilian permanent resident status which she lost by absence and the loss was voluntary; the discrimination experienced did not amount to persecution and there is no serious possibility she would be persecuted in Haiti given available family support and state protection factors; consequently Article 1E excluded her from refugee protection and the minor child is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-11069
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determinations confirmed: principal appellant excluded under Article 1E; associate appellant not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Status, Protection Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97, Gender Related Persecution, Battered Woman Syndrome
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Law Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Status Protection Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97 Gender Related Persecution Battered Woman Syndrome

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was exclusion under Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention correctly applied to the principal appellant given her Brazilian permanent resident status and its loss?
  2. 2 Did the RPD err in finding no serious possibility of persecution or risk to the minor child such that she would be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the principal appellant had held Brazilian permanent resident status which she lost by absence and the loss was voluntary; the discrimination experienced did not amount to persecution and there is no serious possibility she would be persecuted in Haiti given available family support and state protection factors; consequently Article 1E excluded her from refugee protection and the minor child is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determinations confirmed: principal appellant excluded under Article 1E; associate appellant not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determinations affirmed (principal appellant excluded under Article 1E; associate appellant not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection)