VC0-00953

VC0-00953

The RPD erred in excluding the Adult Appellants under Article 1E because they did not enjoy status substantially similar to Panamanian nationals — they lacked the right to work freely and full access to social services due to xenophobia and administrative barriers — and on the merits the Adult Appellants, as opposition political actors, face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela; the Minor Associate Appellant, as a Panamanian citizen, has not established a forward‑looking risk and his appeal is dismissed.

Citation
VC0-00953
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (substitute Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Adult Appellants found to be Convention refugees; Minor Associate Appellant appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Status, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Xenophobia / Discrimination, Risk to Minor, Section 97 IRPA Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Status Persecution State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (substitute Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Adult Appellants are excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention because they had status substantially similar to nationals of Panama
  2. 2 Whether discrimination and restrictions faced in Panama amounted to persecution
  3. 3 Whether Adult Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela on account of political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in excluding the Adult Appellants under Article 1E because they did not enjoy status substantially similar to Panamanian nationals — they lacked the right to work freely and full access to social services due to xenophobia and administrative barriers — and on the merits the Adult Appellants, as opposition political actors, face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela; the Minor Associate Appellant, as a Panamanian citizen, has not established a forward‑looking risk and his appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Adult Appellants found to be Convention refugees; Minor Associate Appellant appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Substitute decision that the Principal Appellant and Adult Associate Appellant are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of IRPA
  • Confirm the decision of the RPD that the Minor Associate Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA