MB9-07296

MB9-07296

The appeal is dismissed because the documents filed on appeal were inadmissible and insufficient to overturn the RPD's finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant had regularized status in Brazil and was therefore excluded from Convention protection under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA; alternatively, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB9-07296
Parties
Appellant / Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence on Appeal, Oral Hearing, Exclusion Under Article 1 E of the Refugee Convention, Application of Section 98 IRPA, Sections 96 and 97 IRPA, Credibility Assessment, Particular Social Group (gender)
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of Evidence on Appeal Oral Hearing Exclusion Under Article 1 E of the Refugee Convention Application of Section 98 IRPA Sections 96 and 97 IRPA +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents presented on appeal were admissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing should be held under subsection 110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant had permanent resident status in Brazil and thus was excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the documents filed on appeal were inadmissible and insufficient to overturn the RPD's finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant had regularized status in Brazil and was therefore excluded from Convention protection under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA; alternatively, the appellant failed to establish subjective and objectively well‑founded fear under sections 96 and 97 due to credibility deficiencies, so the RPD's decision was correct and requires no rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellant is excluded from the Refugee Convention under section 98 of the IRPA
  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision that the minor daughter is not a refugee under section 96 and is not a person in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the IRPA