MB8-21435

MB8-21435

The Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1F(a)/s.98 IRPA because objective country documentation and the appellant's own admissions establish that the Philippines military committed crimes against humanity and that, as an intelligence officer who collated and transmitted information identifying suspected NPA members, he voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to those crimes; the Minister met the burden of establishing a reasonable suspicion of exclusion. The Associate Appellant's claim fails because she has an available and reasonable IFA in Manila on the Rasaratnam test, and her risk from criminality is generalized and excluded under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-21435
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection by operation of s.98 IRPA (Article 1F(a)) and that the Associate Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Exclusion (article 1 F), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, Credibility Findings, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Criminal Law Administrative Law Exclusion (article 1 F) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity Credibility Findings +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 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(a) / s.98 IRPA for complicity in crimes against humanity
  2. 2 Whether the Associate Appellant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Manila and therefore no section 96/97 protection claim
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant's affidavit constitutes admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and related jurisprudence

Ratio Decidendi

The Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1F(a)/s.98 IRPA because objective country documentation and the appellant's own admissions establish that the Philippines military committed crimes against humanity and that, as an intelligence officer who collated and transmitted information identifying suspected NPA members, he voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to those crimes; the Minister met the burden of establishing a reasonable suspicion of exclusion. The Associate Appellant's claim fails because she has an available and reasonable IFA in Manila on the Rasaratnam test, and her risk from criminality is generalized and excluded under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection by operation of s.98 IRPA (Article 1F(a)) and that the Associate Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed (Principal Appellant excluded under s.98 IRPA; Associate Appellant's claim dismissed based on available IFA in Manila)