TA3-24600

TA3-24600

Warrants and supporting official Taiwanese/Interpol material, combined with the claimants' acknowledgements and inconsistencies, amount to 'serious reasons for considering' that the principal and female claimants committed fraud; fraud is a serious non-political crime and, if committed in Canada, would attract maximum sentences consistent with s.101(2)(b) guidance; therefore principal and female claimants are excluded under IRPA s.98 (Article 1F(b)); alternatively, on the merits the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97; adjournment denied for delay and lack of diligence.

Citation
TA3-24600
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX); Female Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX); Adult Son (dependent): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimants: Edward Hung; Counsel for the Minister: James Railton; Panel Member: Diane L. Tinker; Tribunal Officer: M. Sack
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection — Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) of the Refugee Convention (irpa S.98) / De Novo Hearing and Reasons/decision on Exclusion and Protection Claims
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected: principal and female claimants excluded under IRPA s.98 (Article 1F(b)); alternatively all three claimants not persons in need of protection under s.97.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Article 1 F(b), Serious Non Political Crime, Charter S.7 Vagueness Challenge, Burden and Standard of Proof, Adjournment and Production of Documents, Fair Trial and Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Exclusion Clauses Article 1 F(b) Serious Non Political Crime +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX)

Female Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Adult Son (dependent)

Edward Hung

Counsel for Claimants

James Railton

Counsel for the Minister

Diane L. Tinker

Panel Member

M. Sack

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection — Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) of the Refugee Convention (irpa S.98) / De Novo Hearing and Reasons/decision on Exclusion and Protection Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether IRPA s.98 / Article 1F(b) is unconstitutionally vague under Charter s.7
  2. 2 Whether there are 'serious reasons for considering' the claimants committed a serious non-political crime
  3. 3 Whether the alleged fraud constitutes a 'serious non-political crime' for exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

Warrants and supporting official Taiwanese/Interpol material, combined with the claimants' acknowledgements and inconsistencies, amount to 'serious reasons for considering' that the principal and female claimants committed fraud; fraud is a serious non-political crime and, if committed in Canada, would attract maximum sentences consistent with s.101(2)(b) guidance; therefore principal and female claimants are excluded under IRPA s.98 (Article 1F(b)); alternatively, on the merits the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97; adjournment denied for delay and lack of diligence.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected: principal and female claimants excluded under IRPA s.98 (Article 1F(b)); alternatively all three claimants not persons in need of protection under s.97.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims
  • Adjournment request denied