VB9-06109

VB9-06109

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD: on the Zeng balancing the appellant was excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA because he previously held Chilean permanent residence which he voluntarily lost by remaining outside Chile without seeking renewal, he failed to credibly establish serious risk in Chile or lack of state protection and failed to produce expected corroborative evidence, the psychological report did not explain material inconsistencies, and it is more likely than not he could return to Chile under temporary status and reapply for residence, so Canada’s international obligations would not be disregarded by exclusion.

Citation
VB9-06109
Parties
Appellant / Person En Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Exclusion Under S.98 Irpa) / Appeal Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention and s.98 IRPA and found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Section 98 IRPA, Permanent Residence Status, State Protection, Credibility and Corroboration, Psychological Evidence and Vulnerability, Ability to Return to Third Country, Canada's International Obligations, Zeng Balancing Test
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Law Article 1 E Exclusion Section 98 IRPA Permanent Residence Status State Protection +5 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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person En Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Exclusion Under S.98 Irpa) / Appeal Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the appellant voluntarily lost Chilean permanent resident status
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection would be available in Chile

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD: on the Zeng balancing the appellant was excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA because he previously held Chilean permanent residence which he voluntarily lost by remaining outside Chile without seeking renewal, he failed to credibly establish serious risk in Chile or lack of state protection and failed to produce expected corroborative evidence, the psychological report did not explain material inconsistencies, and it is more likely than not he could return to Chile under temporary status and reapply for residence, so Canada’s international obligations would not be disregarded by exclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention and s.98 IRPA and found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection