VA9-00416

VA9-00416

The Panel found there are serious reasons for considering the claimant committed a serious non-political crime (trafficking in cocaine based on the seizure of 70 grams and surrounding circumstances) prior to admission; therefore the claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA. Alternatively, even absent exclusion, the claimant's credibility was rejected and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed, so the refugee claim fails.

Citation
VA9-00416
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing/decision
Outcome
Claimant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the Convention and s.98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; refugee protection claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Drug Trafficking, Serious Non Political Crime, Internal Flight Alternative, Delay in Claiming, Credibility and Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Drug Trafficking Serious Non Political Crime Internal Flight Alternative Delay in Claiming +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant committed a serious non-political crime (drug trafficking) outside the country of refuge prior to admission
  2. 2 Whether Article 1F(b) exclusion applies
  3. 3 Whether the offence qualifies as a "serious" crime under relevant authority

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel found there are serious reasons for considering the claimant committed a serious non-political crime (trafficking in cocaine based on the seizure of 70 grams and surrounding circumstances) prior to admission; therefore the claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA. Alternatively, even absent exclusion, the claimant's credibility was rejected and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed, so the refugee claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claimant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the Convention and s.98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; refugee protection claim rejected.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; exclusion under Article 1F(b) applied; claimant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.