MB9-21953

MB9-21953

The RAD confirms the RPD: appellants had Brazilian permanent resident status that conferred rights substantially similar to nationals, they voluntarily left Brazil and subsequently lost that status by absence for over two years with no entitlement to automatic recovery, and on a balance of probabilities they would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk under s.97 IRPA in Haiti; therefore they are excluded by Article 1E and the minor US citizen is not a refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-21953
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Haitian appellants are excluded by operation of Article 1E and the US minor is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Zeng Criteria, Voluntariness of Departure, Persecution, Prospective Risk Under S.97 IRPA, Permanent Residency in Third Country, Minor Claimant Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law International Law Article 1 E Exclusion Zeng Criteria Voluntariness of Departure Persecution +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (us Citizen)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Haitian appellants excluded from protection by operation of Article 1E of the 1951 Convention?
  2. 2 Did the appellants establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk under s.97 IRPA if returned to Haiti?
  3. 3 Is the minor US citizen a refugee or person in need of protection?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: appellants had Brazilian permanent resident status that conferred rights substantially similar to nationals, they voluntarily left Brazil and subsequently lost that status by absence for over two years with no entitlement to automatic recovery, and on a balance of probabilities they would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk under s.97 IRPA in Haiti; therefore they are excluded by Article 1E and the minor US citizen is not a refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Haitian appellants are excluded by operation of Article 1E and the US minor is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RAD confirms RPD decision that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are described by Article 1E and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection