TB8-14702

TB8-14702

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA for committing a serious non‑political crime (parental abduction) after weighing Jayasekara factors and rejecting the imminence necessity defence; accepted new evidence in part but found it insufficient to establish a well‑founded fear from BW, his family or white supremacists or to rebut the strong presumption of state protection in the United States; therefore appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TB8-14702
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (redetermination) / Redetermination of Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision; Principal Appellant excluded under s.98 IRPA/Article 1F(b); Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Exclusion Article 1 F(b), State Protection, Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence S.110 IRPA, Necessity Defence/imminent Harm, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law International Law Human Rights Law Exclusion Article 1 F(b) State Protection +5 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (redetermination) / Redetermination of Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met s.110(4)/(5) and raised credibility issues warranting an oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA for parental abduction
  3. 3 Whether the defence of imminence/necessity (s.285 Criminal Code) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA for committing a serious non‑political crime (parental abduction) after weighing Jayasekara factors and rejecting the imminence necessity defence; accepted new evidence in part but found it insufficient to establish a well‑founded fear from BW, his family or white supremacists or to rebut the strong presumption of state protection in the United States; therefore appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision; Principal Appellant excluded under s.98 IRPA/Article 1F(b); Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of Refugee Protection Division dated May 28, 2018 confirmed