MA9-04734

MA9-04734

Tribunal found on the balance of evidence that the claimant committed the burglary but, applying the Jayasekara criteria and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors (lack of violence, necessity, immediate remorse and cooperation, personal circumstances and fear of return which partially explains flight), concluded the offence was not a serious non-political crime under Article 1F(b); therefore exclusion did not apply and refugee protection was granted to the claimants, except for the US citizen daughter whose claim was rejected.

Citation
MA9-04734
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection With Minister's Intervention Seeking Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) / Hearing and Decision (exclusion and Inclusion Determination)
Outcome
Minister's request for exclusion under Article 1F(b) denied; refugee protection granted to the claimants listed except for one family member who is a US citizen whose claim was rejected.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b), Serious Non Political Crime, Convention Refugee Status, Minister's Intervention, Political Opinion, Flight From Justice
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) Serious Non Political Crime Convention Refugee Status Minister's Intervention +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Public Safety

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection With Minister's Intervention Seeking Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) / Hearing and Decision (exclusion and Inclusion Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant commit the alleged offence?
  2. 2 Was the offence a serious non-political crime under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention?
  3. 3 Does the exclusion clause apply to bar refugee protection?

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found on the balance of evidence that the claimant committed the burglary but, applying the Jayasekara criteria and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors (lack of violence, necessity, immediate remorse and cooperation, personal circumstances and fear of return which partially explains flight), concluded the offence was not a serious non-political crime under Article 1F(b); therefore exclusion did not apply and refugee protection was granted to the claimants, except for the US citizen daughter whose claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Minister's request for exclusion under Article 1F(b) denied; refugee protection granted to the claimants listed except for one family member who is a US citizen whose claim was rejected.

Orders

  • Minister's request for exclusion rejected
  • Refugee protection granted to claimants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX