TA8-15104

TA8-15104

On the evidence, including a credible Interpol warrant alleging extensive fraud and documentary indication the claimant was legal owner/director of businesses, there are serious reasons to believe the claimant committed a serious non-political crime and she is excluded under Article 1F(b)/IRPA; additionally the claimants are not credible on protection issues and state protection in Korea is available, so the claims are rejected.

Citation
TA8-15104
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (exclusion Hearing Under Irpa) / Decision Reasons and Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claimants excluded and refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b), Serious Non Political Crime, Fraud, State Protection, Spousal Abuse, Credibility Assessment, Interpol Warrant, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Family Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) Serious Non Political Crime Fraud State Protection +4 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXX

Claimant

XXXXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (exclusion Hearing Under Irpa) / Decision Reasons and Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant should be excluded under Article 1F(b) / IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary inconsistencies
  3. 3 Availability of state protection in the Republic of Korea

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, including a credible Interpol warrant alleging extensive fraud and documentary indication the claimant was legal owner/director of businesses, there are serious reasons to believe the claimant committed a serious non-political crime and she is excluded under Article 1F(b)/IRPA; additionally the claimants are not credible on protection issues and state protection in Korea is available, so the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claimants excluded and refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; refugee claims rejected
  • Claimant excluded from protection under Article 1F(b) of the Convention and IRPA; claimant should return to the Republic of Korea to face charges noted in the Interpol warrant