MB9-03556

MB9-03556

The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the balance of probabilities the principal appellants held Brazilian permanent resident status substantially similar to nationals and, although they had been absent long enough to lose formal status, they voluntarily permitted that status to lapse and failed to demonstrate they could not return to or use Brazilian status; accumulated omissions and contradictions fatally undermined their credibility; therefore they are excluded under Article 1E and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
MB9-03556
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX; Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion (third Country Status), Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, IRPA Protection Claims, Burden of Proof and Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion (third Country Status) Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status IRPA Protection Claims Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are excluded under Article 1E by having status in Brazil substantially similar to nationals
  2. 2 Whether appellants lost Brazilian permanent resident status and if loss was voluntary
  3. 3 Whether appellants could reasonably return to or use their Brazilian status

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the balance of probabilities the principal appellants held Brazilian permanent resident status substantially similar to nationals and, although they had been absent long enough to lose formal status, they voluntarily permitted that status to lapse and failed to demonstrate they could not return to or use Brazilian status; accumulated omissions and contradictions fatally undermined their credibility; therefore they are excluded under Article 1E and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination dated January 16, 2019 confirmed