MA6-06976

MA6-06976

The tribunal found on the evidence that the claimant committed substantial credit-card fraud amounting to an offence equivalent to Criminal Code s.342.1(c)/(d) punishable by a maximum of 10 years, that official US records indicate restitution was unpaid and the claimant's explanations were not credible, and that even if the sentence were completed exclusion under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA remains available; therefore the claimant is excluded and his refugee protection claim is rejected.

Citation
MA6-06976
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Intervenor/respondent: Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim With Exclusion Determination Under S.98 IRPA / Decision Following Hearing (exclusion and Inclusion Analysis)
Outcome
Claimant excluded from refugee protection under section 98 of the IRPA as described in Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention; claim denied.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Serious Non Political Crime, Inadmissibility, Credibility Assessment, Completion of Sentence, Inclusion Clauses
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Serious Non Political Crime Inadmissibility 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Minister)

Intervenor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim With Exclusion Determination Under S.98 IRPA / Decision Following Hearing (exclusion and Inclusion Analysis)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant committed a serious non-political crime outside Canada within the meaning of Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention and s.98 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant completed his sentence and whether completion would preclude exclusion
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's asylum claim is credible for inclusion under ss.96-97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found on the evidence that the claimant committed substantial credit-card fraud amounting to an offence equivalent to Criminal Code s.342.1(c)/(d) punishable by a maximum of 10 years, that official US records indicate restitution was unpaid and the claimant's explanations were not credible, and that even if the sentence were completed exclusion under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA remains available; therefore the claimant is excluded and his refugee protection claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claimant excluded from refugee protection under section 98 of the IRPA as described in Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention; claim denied.

Orders

  • Claimant declared not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection pursuant to section 98 IRPA