VB9-09886

VB9-09886

The RAD accepted the Minister's newly filed transcripts as raising serious reasons to consider perjury but concluded that, on the entire record and applying the statutory and jurisprudential factors for seriousness, the conduct (credit card fraud, forgery, use of fraudulent identity and related perjury) was not 'serious' in nature; therefore the respondent is not excluded under s.98 IRPA and remains a Convention refugee, and the RPD's decision was reconfirmed.

Citation
VB9-09886
Parties
Respondent (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX XXXX Aka: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: Minister (Appellant)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Under S.98 IRPA (exclusion Under Article 1 F(b)) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (rad) on Appeal From RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondent is not excluded under s.98 IRPA and is confirmed as a Convention refugee; RPD decision reconfirmed.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) of the Refugee Convention, Section 98 and Subsection 110(3) of the IRPA, Perjury and Identity Fraud, Credit Card Fraud and Forgery, Assessment of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) of the Refugee Convention Section 98 and Subsection 110(3) of the IRPA Perjury and Identity Fraud Credit Card Fraud and Forgery Assessment of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX Aka: XXXX XXXX XXXX

Respondent (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister (Appellant)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Under S.98 IRPA (exclusion Under Article 1 F(b)) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (rad) on Appeal From RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent committed serious non-political crimes outside the country of refuge such that exclusion under Article 1F(b) and s.98 IRPA applies
  2. 2 Whether the respondent committed perjury by using a fraudulent identity under oath
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in evaluating aggravating and mitigating factors and in assessing credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD accepted the Minister's newly filed transcripts as raising serious reasons to consider perjury but concluded that, on the entire record and applying the statutory and jurisprudential factors for seriousness, the conduct (credit card fraud, forgery, use of fraudulent identity and related perjury) was not 'serious' in nature; therefore the respondent is not excluded under s.98 IRPA and remains a Convention refugee, and the RPD's decision was reconfirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; respondent is not excluded under s.98 IRPA and is confirmed as a Convention refugee; RPD decision reconfirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed; respondent confirmed as a Convention refugee.