VB8-06768

VB8-06768

On the evidence including US charging documents and witness testimony, there were serious reasons for considering the Principal Appellant committed serious non-political crimes (violent assault, attempted murder, use/pointing of firearms) in the USA before entering Canada, warranting exclusion under Article 1F(b)/section 98 IRPA; the Associate Appellants failed to establish persecution on protected grounds or that La Linea had the capacity or motivation to track and harm them throughout Mexico, so the RPD decision denying refugee protection and need for protection is confirmed.

Citation
VB8-06768
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: Belen Alicia XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX Hinojos
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Section 98 IRPA, Convention Refugee Status (section 96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (section 97 Irpa), Section 111(1)(a) IRPA, Admissibility of New Evidence (section 110 Irpa), Standard of Review for Mixed Fact and Law
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Refugee Law Criminal Law Intersection Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Section 98 IRPA Convention Refugee Status (section 96 Irpa) Person in Need of Protection (section 97 Irpa) +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Belen Alicia XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX Hinojos

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention and section 98 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether Associate Appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets the requirements of section 110(4) IRPA and the Singh/Raza factors

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence including US charging documents and witness testimony, there were serious reasons for considering the Principal Appellant committed serious non-political crimes (violent assault, attempted murder, use/pointing of firearms) in the USA before entering Canada, warranting exclusion under Article 1F(b)/section 98 IRPA; the Associate Appellants failed to establish persecution on protected grounds or that La Linea had the capacity or motivation to track and harm them throughout Mexico, so the RPD decision denying refugee protection and need for protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed: Principal Appellant excluded from refugee protection under section 98 IRPA / Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention