MB8-09477

MB8-09477

The RPD did not err: the male appellant holds Brazilian permanent resident status that, as a matter of law, provides rights comparable to citizens and thus excludes him under Article 1E; he failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence of a risk in Brazil; the female appellant's claim lacks credibility on key points and she failed to establish a well‑founded fear in Haiti, so both are not entitled to protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB8-09477
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Permanent Resident Rights, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Exclusion Under Article 1 E Credibility Assessment Persecution Permanent Resident Rights Country Conditions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant holding Brazilian permanent resident status is excluded from Convention protection under Article 1E
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' testimony is credible
  3. 3 Whether the female appellant faces a well‑founded fear of persecution in Haiti

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not err: the male appellant holds Brazilian permanent resident status that, as a matter of law, provides rights comparable to citizens and thus excludes him under Article 1E; he failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence of a risk in Brazil; the female appellant's claim lacks credibility on key points and she failed to establish a well‑founded fear in Haiti, so both are not entitled to protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RAD confirms RPD finding that the male appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the Convention