TB9-03379

TB9-03379

The RPD erred in finding exclusion under Articles 1F(b) and 1F(c) because the Minister did not meet the burden of proving serious reasons for considering the appellant was involved in a terrorist bomb plot; however the appellant was found not credible, failed to discharge the burden to prove inclusion under sections 96 or 97 on a balance of probabilities, and failed to present sufficient corroborative documentary evidence or establish a forward-looking risk based on ethnicity or political activity, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed for other reasons (appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection).

Citation
TB9-03379
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Admissibility, Credibility and Inclusion/exclusion
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed for other reasons: appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) and 1 F(c) of the Refugee Convention, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) IRPA, Rule 29), Sections 96 and 97 IRPA Risk Assessment, Country Conditions and Ethnicity (azeri)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law (terrorism/exclusion) Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) and 1 F(c) of the Refugee Convention Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa, Rule 29) Sections 96 and 97 IRPA Risk Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Admissibility, Credibility and Inclusion/exclusion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious reasons for considering exclusion under Articles 1F(b) and 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention
  2. 2 Whether the appellant meets the definition of a Convention refugee or is a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's testimony is credible and supported by documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in finding exclusion under Articles 1F(b) and 1F(c) because the Minister did not meet the burden of proving serious reasons for considering the appellant was involved in a terrorist bomb plot; however the appellant was found not credible, failed to discharge the burden to prove inclusion under sections 96 or 97 on a balance of probabilities, and failed to present sufficient corroborative documentary evidence or establish a forward-looking risk based on ethnicity or political activity, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed for other reasons (appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed for other reasons: appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of RPD decision that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection