MC0-08158

MC0-08158

The male appellant participated knowingly and voluntarily in criminal activities for CJNG from 2014–2018 such that there are serious reasons for considering he committed serious non‑political crimes equivalent to Canadian offences for which at least one is indictable; he failed to prove the defence of duress (first Ryan requirement not met and, alternatively, knew participation carried risk of coercion), therefore he is excluded under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA; the female appellants rely solely on his testimony and failed to establish personal risk or serious possibility of persecution, so their appeals fail.

Citation
MC0-08158
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
All appeals dismissed: male appellant excluded under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA (RAD sets aside RPD and substitutes finding of exclusion); female appellants' appeals dismissed and RPD determinations confirmed that they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Duress Defence, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Maldonado Presumption
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Duress Defence Credibility Assessment +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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious reasons for considering the male appellant committed serious non‑political crimes outside Canada under Article 1F(b)
  2. 2 Whether the male appellant can rely on the defence of duress to avoid exclusion
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by prejudging the case

Ratio Decidendi

The male appellant participated knowingly and voluntarily in criminal activities for CJNG from 2014–2018 such that there are serious reasons for considering he committed serious non‑political crimes equivalent to Canadian offences for which at least one is indictable; he failed to prove the defence of duress (first Ryan requirement not met and, alternatively, knew participation carried risk of coercion), therefore he is excluded under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA; the female appellants rely solely on his testimony and failed to establish personal risk or serious possibility of persecution, so their appeals fail.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed: male appellant excluded under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA (RAD sets aside RPD and substitutes finding of exclusion); female appellants' appeals dismissed and RPD determinations confirmed that they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal of male appellant dismissed; RAD sets aside RPD and finds male appellant is a person referred to in Article 1F(b) of the Convention and therefore not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 98 of the IRPA (pursuant to para. 111(1)(b)).
  • Appeals of female appellants dismissed and RPD determinations confirmed that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the IRPA (pursuant to para. 111(1)(a)).