TB6-10956

TB6-10956

The principal claimant's evidence and documents were inconsistent and not credible regarding the provenance and timing of consent letters and the alleged loss of passports; there are serious reasons to consider her conduct equivalent to the Criminal Code offence of taking/enticing a child (potentially punishable by up to 10 years), therefore she is excluded from refugee protection under s.98 IRPA; because the designated representative failed to establish the minors' identities with acceptable documentation and offered no reasonable explanation for the failure, the minors' claims fail for lack of established identity.

Citation
TB6-10956
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of the Crown (intervenor); Designated Representative: Nadiya Naimi; Member / Decision Maker: David Young; Interpreter: Jawid Noor
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing With Oral Decision and Written Reasons Rendered
Outcome
Claim denied: principal claimant excluded from refugee protection; minor claimants' claims rejected for failure to establish identity
Legal Topics
Exclusion (s.98 Irpa), Identity and Documentation, Credibility Assessment, Child Removal / Abduction Equivalence, Ministerial Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Exclusion (s.98 Irpa) Identity and Documentation Credibility Assessment Child Removal / Abduction Equivalence +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister of the Crown (intervenor)

Respondent / Minister

Nadiya Naimi

Designated Representative

David Young

Member / Decision Maker

Jawid Noor

Interpreter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing With Oral Decision and Written Reasons Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is excluded from refugee protection under section 98 IRPA due to conduct equivalent to a serious non-political crime
  2. 2 Whether the two minor claimants' identities were adequately established
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible, particularly consent letters and travel documents

Ratio Decidendi

The principal claimant's evidence and documents were inconsistent and not credible regarding the provenance and timing of consent letters and the alleged loss of passports; there are serious reasons to consider her conduct equivalent to the Criminal Code offence of taking/enticing a child (potentially punishable by up to 10 years), therefore she is excluded from refugee protection under s.98 IRPA; because the designated representative failed to establish the minors' identities with acceptable documentation and offered no reasonable explanation for the failure, the minors' claims fail for lack of established identity.

Court Disposition

Claim denied: principal claimant excluded from refugee protection; minor claimants' claims rejected for failure to establish identity

Orders

  • Principal claimant excluded from refugee protection under section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Claims of the two minor claimants dismissed for failure to establish identity and lack of credible basis