MB8-06516

MB8-06516

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the father is excluded from the Convention under Article 1E because prima facie evidence establishes his permanent resident status in Venezuela and he did not show loss of that status; the son's claim lacked evidence of risk under sections 96 and 97 IRPA; no new admissible evidence justified an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB8-06516
Parties
Appellant (father): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Son): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (article 1 E Exclusion; Sections 96 98 Irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (de Novo Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Exclusion (article 1 E), Refugee Protection (section 96 Irpa), Persons in Need of Protection (section 97 Irpa), Permanent Resident Status, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing (subsection 110(6) Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Exclusion (article 1 E) Refugee Protection (section 96 Irpa) Persons in Need of Protection (section 97 Irpa) Permanent Resident Status Standard of Review +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant (father)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (article 1 E Exclusion; Sections 96 98 Irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (de Novo Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father is excluded from the Refugee Convention under Article 1E due to permanent resident status in Venezuela
  2. 2 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the father is excluded from the Convention under Article 1E because prima facie evidence establishes his permanent resident status in Venezuela and he did not show loss of that status; the son's claim lacked evidence of risk under sections 96 and 97 IRPA; no new admissible evidence justified an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • RAD dismisses the appeal pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • RAD confirms RPD determination that the father is excluded from the Convention under Article 1E due to his permanent resident status in Venezuela