TB7-19303

TB7-19303

On the balance of probabilities the Appellants were Peruvian permanent residents who were able, as of the relevant dates, to reclaim their residency under Peruvian law; their prolonged absence and unexplained delay undermined credibility and amounted to voluntary loss of status such that they are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA, therefore the RAD confirms the RPD and dismisses the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-19303
Parties
Appellant: Guorong Chen; Appellant: Guozhuang Chen
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants excluded under Article 1E and found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Internally Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Reacquisition of Third Country Residency
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Internally Flight Alternative Standard of Review Well Founded Fear of Persecution Reacquisition of Third Country Residency

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guorong Chen

Appellant

Guozhuang Chen

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants can reclaim Peruvian permanent resident status and thus have rights substantially equivalent to nationals
  3. 3 Whether the RPD correctly assessed the viability of an internal flight alternative in Peru

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Appellants were Peruvian permanent residents who were able, as of the relevant dates, to reclaim their residency under Peruvian law; their prolonged absence and unexplained delay undermined credibility and amounted to voluntary loss of status such that they are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA, therefore the RAD confirms the RPD and dismisses the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants excluded under Article 1E and found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination
  • Dismiss appeal pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act