MB9-14186

MB9-14186

The RAD upheld the RPD: the male appellant held valid permanent residence in Brazil that conferred rights substantially similar to Brazilian nationals; the female appellant could have obtained permanent residence through family reunification but failed to do so; their departures were motivated by economic reasons and were voluntary; discrimination in Brazil did not reach the threshold of persecution; the female appellant would not face a serious risk in Haiti; balancing Zeng factors leads to exclusion under Article 1E, so both appellants are excluded from refugee protection.

Citation
MB9-14186
Parties
Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX); Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that both appellants are excluded under Article 1E and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Third Country Status (zeng Factors), New Evidence Admissibility, Risk Assessment, Voluntariness of Departure
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Exclusion Under Article 1 E Third Country Status (zeng Factors) New Evidence Admissibility Risk Assessment Voluntariness of Departure

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

XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX)

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are excluded from protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in applying Zeng factors regarding third-country status
  3. 3 Whether the female appellant had or could have obtained permanent resident status in Brazil

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD: the male appellant held valid permanent residence in Brazil that conferred rights substantially similar to Brazilian nationals; the female appellant could have obtained permanent residence through family reunification but failed to do so; their departures were motivated by economic reasons and were voluntary; discrimination in Brazil did not reach the threshold of persecution; the female appellant would not face a serious risk in Haiti; balancing Zeng factors leads to exclusion under Article 1E, so both appellants are excluded from refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that both appellants are excluded under Article 1E and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.