TA8-21365

TA8-21365

The Tribunal found the claimants' denial not credible, concluded there are serious reasons for considering the first and second claimants committed serious non-political drug crimes in the United States within the meaning of Article 1F(b), and therefore excluded them from refugee protection; the third claimant's claim was rejected for lack of risk in the United States.

Citation
TA8-21365
Parties
Claimant (designated Representative): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (common Law Spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim With Minister's Intervention Under Article 1 F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention / Decision (reasons)
Outcome
First and second claimants excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b); third claimant's refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Minister's Intervention, Serious Non Political Crime, Drug Trafficking, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Criminal Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Minister's Intervention Serious Non Political Crime Drug Trafficking +4 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (designated Representative)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (common Law Spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim With Minister's Intervention Under Article 1 F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention / Decision (reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection with respect to the United States of America
  2. 2 Whether there are serious reasons for considering that the first and second claimants committed serious non-political crimes in the United States prior to admission to Canada such that Article 1F(b) exclusion applies
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' testimony and amended narratives about lack of involvement in drug crimes are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the claimants' denial not credible, concluded there are serious reasons for considering the first and second claimants committed serious non-political drug crimes in the United States within the meaning of Article 1F(b), and therefore excluded them from refugee protection; the third claimant's claim was rejected for lack of risk in the United States.

Court Disposition

First and second claimants excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b); third claimant's refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • First and second claimants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention and their claims are rejected.
  • The third claimant's claim for refugee protection is rejected.