TA9-18225

TA9-18225

The claimant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute met the criteria for a serious non-political crime under Article 1F(b) because the elements, mode of prosecution and prescribed penalty support the presumption of seriousness and the claimed mitigating circumstances did not rebut that presumption; therefore the claimant is excludable.

Citation
TA9-18225
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Exclusion Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claimant found excludable under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention; refugee claim not referred to the Refugee Protection Division.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Serious Non Political Crime, Possession With Intent to Distribute, Application of Jayasekara/xie Tests
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Refugee Law Criminal Law Exclusion Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Serious Non Political Crime Possession With Intent to Distribute Application of Jayasekara/xie Tests

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Exclusion Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is excludable under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention
  2. 2 Whether the US conviction for possession with intent to distribute constitutes a serious non-political crime
  3. 3 Whether mitigating factors rebut the presumption of seriousness

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute met the criteria for a serious non-political crime under Article 1F(b) because the elements, mode of prosecution and prescribed penalty support the presumption of seriousness and the claimed mitigating circumstances did not rebut that presumption; therefore the claimant is excludable.

Court Disposition

Claimant found excludable under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention; refugee claim not referred to the Refugee Protection Division.

Orders

  • Claimant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention as a result of a serious non-political crime.
  • No inclusion analysis required given finding of exclusion.