MB9-17600

MB9-17600

The appeal is dismissed because the principal appellant had acquired permanent resident status in Brazil conferring rights substantially similar to nationals, could return via family reunification as the mother of a Brazilian child, voluntarily abandoned that status, and failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence of a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under s.97 IRPA in Brazil or Haiti; consequently she is excluded under Article 1E and the minor appellant is not a refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-17600
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: principal appellant excluded under Article 1E of the Convention; minor appellant not a refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Convention Refugee Status, Risk Assessment, Credibility Findings, Gender Based Persecution Guidance
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Law Exclusion Under Article 1 E Convention Refugee Status Risk Assessment Credibility Findings Gender Based Persecution Guidance

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention
  2. 2 Whether the principal and minor appellants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Assessment of credibility and evidentiary weight of documentary and testimonial evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the principal appellant had acquired permanent resident status in Brazil conferring rights substantially similar to nationals, could return via family reunification as the mother of a Brazilian child, voluntarily abandoned that status, and failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence of a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under s.97 IRPA in Brazil or Haiti; consequently she is excluded under Article 1E and the minor appellant is not a refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: principal appellant excluded under Article 1E of the Convention; minor appellant not a refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
  • No protection granted to appellants