TB0-08876

TB0-08876

The decision to confer refugee protection was vacated under s.109(1) IRPA because the protected person misrepresented material facts about his military service and role such that, had they been disclosed, the Member would have had serious grounds to believe he was complicit in crimes against humanity and thus excluded under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention.

Citation
TB0-08876
Parties
Protected Person / Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Applicant / Respondent: Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Vacate (s.109(1) Irpa) / Decision on Application to Vacate (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Application allowed; protected person's refugee claim deemed rejected and prior decision conferring refugee protection nullified.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Vacating Orders, Exclusion Under Article 1 F, Crimes Against Humanity, Complicity, Refugee Status Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Misrepresentation Vacating Orders Exclusion Under Article 1 F Crimes Against Humanity +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Protected Person / Claimant

Minister of Public Safety

Applicant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Vacate (s.109(1) Irpa) / Decision on Application to Vacate (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the protected person misrepresented or withheld material facts in obtaining refugee status
  2. 2 Whether omissions or misrepresentations would have led to exclusion under Article 1F(a) or 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether service and rank in the Colombian armed forces made the claimant complicit in crimes against humanity

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to confer refugee protection was vacated under s.109(1) IRPA because the protected person misrepresented material facts about his military service and role such that, had they been disclosed, the Member would have had serious grounds to believe he was complicit in crimes against humanity and thus excluded under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; protected person's refugee claim deemed rejected and prior decision conferring refugee protection nullified.

Orders

  • Minister's application to vacate allowed
  • Protected person's claim for refugee protection deemed rejected