TB2-07572

TB2-07572

The panel declined to exclude the principal claimant under Article 1F(b) because the theft did not meet the Canadian threshold for a ten‑year maximum offence once proper valuation and contextual assessment were applied; however, on the merits the claimants failed to establish current well‑founded fear given durable change in Colombian conditions following the FARC peace process and the availability of a reasonable internal flight alternative (Cartagena or Medellin); the principal claimant's credibility was undermined by an egregious 12‑year undocumented stay in the US and inconsistent testimony, and the evidence did not meet the high threshold for compelling reasons under s.108(4) IRPA,...

Citation
TB2-07572
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent/intervener: Minister (intervener)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision on Merits (rpd Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; Article 1F(b) exclusion not applied to the principal claimant
Legal Topics
Credibility, Ministerial Intervention (article 1 F(b)), Exclusion for Serious Non Political Crime, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Change of Country Conditions, Delay in Claiming, Compelling Reasons Under S.108(4) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law (exclusion) Administrative Law Credibility Ministerial Intervention (article 1 F(b)) Exclusion for Serious Non Political Crime Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (child)

Minister (intervener)

Respondent/intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision on Merits (rpd Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious reasons to consider the principal claimant excluded under Article 1F(b) for having committed a serious non-political crime in the US prior to admission to Canada
  2. 2 Credibility of the claimant given lengthy undocumented stay in the US and criminal conduct
  3. 3 Whether changed country conditions in Colombia (FARC peace process) negate well-founded fear

Ratio Decidendi

The panel declined to exclude the principal claimant under Article 1F(b) because the theft did not meet the Canadian threshold for a ten‑year maximum offence once proper valuation and contextual assessment were applied; however, on the merits the claimants failed to establish current well‑founded fear given durable change in Colombian conditions following the FARC peace process and the availability of a reasonable internal flight alternative (Cartagena or Medellin); the principal claimant's credibility was undermined by an egregious 12‑year undocumented stay in the US and inconsistent testimony, and the evidence did not meet the high threshold for compelling reasons under s.108(4) IRPA,...

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; Article 1F(b) exclusion not applied to the principal claimant

Orders

  • Ministerial intervention under Article 1F(b) dismissed (no exclusion)
  • Refugee protection claims of the principal claimant and her two children are rejected