TB8-14562

TB8-14562

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD failed to apply the Jayasekara factors and to properly assess seriousness of the child abduction and money laundering offences; given the applicable sentencing ranges, the actual short sentence served, and mitigating considerations, the offences were not shown to be serious non‑political crimes under Article 1F(b), so the Principal Appellant is not excluded; because the record is insufficient to resolve the minors' protection claims, the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Citation
TB8-14562
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Allowed and Referred to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Child Abduction, Money Laundering, State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Child Abduction Money Laundering State Protection Credibility Assessment

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Allowed and Referred to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b) for serious non-political crimes (child abduction and money laundering)
  2. 2 Whether the minor appellants face risk from the father and whether state protection in the UK is available
  3. 3 Whether RAD should hold an oral hearing or admit new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD failed to apply the Jayasekara factors and to properly assess seriousness of the child abduction and money laundering offences; given the applicable sentencing ranges, the actual short sentence served, and mitigating considerations, the offences were not shown to be serious non‑political crimes under Article 1F(b), so the Principal Appellant is not excluded; because the record is insufficient to resolve the minors' protection claims, the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA the RAD refers the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel