MC0-10016

MC0-10016

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found no reversible error: the RPD reasonably concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the wife and two children remained US permanent residents and were excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by omissions and contradictions in testimony, and no admissible new evidence was submitted to justify an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA.

Citation
MC0-10016
Parties
Appellants: Mr. XXXX and family; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause Article 1 E/section 98 IRPA, Refugee Convention Status, Credibility Assessment, Permanent Resident Status (us), Applicability of Sections 96 and 97 IRPA, Oral Hearing Admissibility Under Subsection 110(6) IRPA, Charter Sections 7 and 12 Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Exclusion Clause Article 1 E/section 98 IRPA Refugee Convention Status Credibility Assessment Permanent Resident Status (us) +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXX and family

Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Public Safety

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral hearing should be granted under subsection 110(6) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding family members are excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention and section 98 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the wife and two children had lost US permanent resident status

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found no reversible error: the RPD reasonably concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the wife and two children remained US permanent residents and were excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by omissions and contradictions in testimony, and no admissible new evidence was submitted to justify an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division of August 31, 2020 is confirmed