VA8-05804

VA8-05804

The Minister failed to establish serious reasons to consider the claimant committed or was complicit in crimes against humanity given the claimant's non‑political civil service role, lack of evidence connecting his ministries to atrocities, short duration of service and absence of credible evidence of knowledge or participation; however the claimant's protection claim was independently rejected on credibility and lack of corroboration, so he is not excluded under Article 1F(a) but is denied refugee protection.

Citation
VA8-05804
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada Border Services Agency); Tribunal Officer: Myriam Molgat
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Exclusion Assessment / Reasons and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant is not excluded under Article 1F(a)/section 98 but is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (negative decision).
Legal Topics
Exclusion (article 1 F), Crimes Against Humanity, Credibility Assessment, Refugee Sur Place, Particular Social Group, Public Employment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Criminal Law Human Rights Law Exclusion (article 1 F) Crimes Against Humanity Credibility Assessment Refugee Sur Place +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada Border Services Agency)

Respondent

Myriam Molgat

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Exclusion Assessment / Reasons and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are serious reasons to consider the claimant committed or was complicit in crimes against humanity under Article 1F(a) and section 98 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister failed to establish serious reasons to consider the claimant committed or was complicit in crimes against humanity given the claimant's non‑political civil service role, lack of evidence connecting his ministries to atrocities, short duration of service and absence of credible evidence of knowledge or participation; however the claimant's protection claim was independently rejected on credibility and lack of corroboration, so he is not excluded under Article 1F(a) but is denied refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimant is not excluded under Article 1F(a)/section 98 but is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (negative decision).