VB8-07162

VB8-07162

On independent review the RAD found the adult associate appellant committed serious non-political drug trafficking offences in the USA (including possession of bulk quantities and distribution), his guilty plea and related facts constitute serious reasons for considering exclusion under Article 1F(b) and Section 98 IRPA, and the RPD's credibility findings undermined the family's inclusion claims; consequently the appeal is dismissed and the adult associate appellant is excluded from refugee protection.

Citation
VB8-07162
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Adult: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXforXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent/intervener: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Intervener)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Reasons and Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision and Substituting on Exclusion Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Principal and minor Associate Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and substitutes RPD on exclusion to find adult Associate Appellant excluded under Section 98 IRPA and Article 1F(b).
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Section 98 IRPA, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Convention Refugee Status, Section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Exclusion Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Section 98 IRPA Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Convention Refugee Status +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Adult

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXforXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Intervener)

Respondent/intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Reasons and Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision and Substituting on Exclusion Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the adult associate appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b)/Section 98 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD found the adult associate appellant committed serious non-political drug trafficking offences in the USA (including possession of bulk quantities and distribution), his guilty plea and related facts constitute serious reasons for considering exclusion under Article 1F(b) and Section 98 IRPA, and the RPD's credibility findings undermined the family's inclusion claims; consequently the appeal is dismissed and the adult associate appellant is excluded from refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Principal and minor Associate Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and substitutes RPD on exclusion to find adult Associate Appellant excluded under Section 98 IRPA and Article 1F(b).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated November 13, 2018 confirmed except in relation to exclusion which is substituted