MB9-02447

MB9-02447

The RAD upheld the RPD: evidence established that torture by the PNH was widespread during the relevant period and that the appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and significantly contributed by arresting and delivering detainees who were then tortured; therefore there are serious reasons to consider he was complicit in a crime against humanity and he is excluded under Article 1F(a) and s.98 IRPA.

Citation
MB9-02447
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Concerning Exclusion Under Article 1 F(a) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is excluded under Article 1F(a) and section 98 IRPA and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(a) Exclusion, Mugesera Criteria, Ezokola Complicity Factors, Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, Torture, Section 98 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Criminal Law Administrative Law Article 1 F(a) Exclusion Mugesera Criteria Ezokola Complicity Factors Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Concerning Exclusion Under Article 1 F(a) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in applying Mugesera and Ezokola in finding exclusion under Article 1F(a)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant made a significant and knowing contribution to crimes against humanity by delivering detainees who were then tortured
  3. 3 Whether the RPD improperly used the appellant's testimony or failed to assess risk to the appellant upon return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD: evidence established that torture by the PNH was widespread during the relevant period and that the appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and significantly contributed by arresting and delivering detainees who were then tortured; therefore there are serious reasons to consider he was complicit in a crime against humanity and he is excluded under Article 1F(a) and s.98 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is excluded under Article 1F(a) and section 98 IRPA and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by Refugee Appeal Division
  • RPD determination that appellant is excluded under Article 1F(a) affirmed