MB4-01741

RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MB4-01741-MB4-01742 MB4-01743 MB4-01744 Client ID No. / No ID client : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Private Proceeding / Huis clos Application to Vacate Refugee Protection - Application to Cease Refugee Protection Applicant Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Demandeur Respondents XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Intimés Date of decision and reasons November 6, 2014 Date de la décision Place of hearing Montréal, Quebec Lieu de l'audience Panel Jacqueline Schoepfer Tribunal Counsel for the claimants Me Luc R. Desmarais Conseil(s) du (de la / des) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Designated representative XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Farah Merali Conseil du (de la) ministre INTRODUCTION [1] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the Minister) is applying to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) under section 108 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) to cease the refugee protection granted to XXXX XXXX; his spouse, XXXX XXXX; and their children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, Romanian citizens, hereinafter referred to as the respondents. [2] In addition, the Minister is applying to the RPD, under section 109 of the IRPA, to vacate the refugee status of the respondents because it was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter. [3] The father, XXXX XXXX, acted as the designated representative for XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, the minor children of the principal respondent. The latter was designated as such during proceedings for the refugee protection claim and, by extension, for the rest of the proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), as stipulated in the Refugee Protection Division Rules, under subrule 20(6). PRELIMINARY ISSUES [4] On May 1, 2014, the Minister sent the respondents the application to cease refugee protection. On July 9, 2014, the RPD Registry sent the respondents a notice to appear for a hearing set for August 19, 2014, in Montréal, to hear this application. On July 24, 2014, the principal respondent applied to change the location, as he could not leave the province of Ontario following a judgment by the Court of Québec. The RPD informed him that the hearing would be held by videoconference. [5] On August 15, 2014, that is, three days before the hearing, the respondents, through their counsel, requested a postponement of the hearing. They stated that they had lost the Minister's application, issued to them in May, because of their move from Montréal to Toronto. In addition, they alleged that they were unable to find a lawyer in Toronto to represent them. They stated that they could not find a lawyer in Montréal until the last minute and that he did not have the time to review the case. [6] On August 19, 2014, the panel heard the arguments of the respondents' lawyer regarding the postponement. The Minister's delegate in the room did not object to the postponement. She stated that an application to vacate was also going to be filed against the respondents. [7] At this hearing, the panel pointed out the respondents' lack of diligence in finding themselves a lawyer. Nevertheless, because he did not have the time to review the file, the panel granted the postponement and set a new peremptory hearing date of November 6, 2014. [8] In the interim, on September 4, 2014, the Minister sent the application to vacate refugee status to the respondents and the RPD by priority post. [9] The day of the hearing, November 6, 2014, the principal respondent asked the panel for another postponement concerning the application to vacate. He stated that he wanted to submit affidavits and a police report from Romania. He asked for an additional delay of one to two months. He stated that he was unable to have the documents arrive any earlier because he was busy moving from Toronto to Montréal. [10] The panel rejected the application for a new postponement essentially because the respondents had had enough time to submit evidence. In fact, the application to vacate was sent to them on September 4, with practically the same evidence as that submitted for the application to cease refugee protection, issued in May 2014. Therefore, the day of the hearing, November 6, 2014, the respondents had had at least two months to submit evidence related to the Minister's application to vacate refugee status. The argument that they moved from Toronto to Montréal does not justify the fact that they did not have enough time because these documents had to arrive from Romania. The panel therefore decided to conduct the hearing of both of the Minister's applications. MINISTER'S APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 109 OF THE IRPA [11] The Minister alleges that the respondents claimed refugee protection in Canada from Romania on April 1, 2005, and obtained refugee status by means of a decision rendered by the RPD on July 11, 2005. [12] The Minister alleges that, on May 30, 2006, the respondents obtained permanent resident status in Canada. [13] The Minister alleges that at the time of their claim for refugee protection, the respondents XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX stated that they did not have passports in their possession. They also stated that their respective passports, which had been issued in XXXX 2005, had been lost between the border of Mexico and the United States. [14] The Minister alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2007, a Romanian passport, No. XXXX, in the name of the male respondent XXXX XXXX1 was seized by the Longueuil police when the home of the principal respondent's parents was searched. This passport was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2003, and was valid until XXXX XXXX, 2008. This passport included male respondent XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 2001. [15] At the time of the same search, a Romanian passport, No. XXXX, in the name of the female respondent XXXX XXXX2 was also seized. This passport was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2003, and was valid until XXXX XXXX, 2008. This passport included female respondent XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 2003. [16] The Minister alleges that on April 12, 2011, male respondent XXXX XXXX was ordered deported from Canada on grounds of serious criminality under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA. The same day, the male respondent appealed this removal order to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD). The Minister alleges that on July 16, 2013, female respondent XXXX XXXXwas ordered deported from Canada on grounds of serious criminality under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA. The same day, the female respondent appealed this removal order to the IAD. [17] Regarding the application to vacate, the Minister alleges that the respondents misrepresented facts regarding the issuance and loss of their Romanian passports. The Minister also alleges that the respondents made false statements about their stays outside Romania during the period of the alleged persecution. [18] The Minister is of the opinion that the respondents gave false information to Immigration authorities and to the RPD in their Personal Information Forms (PIFs) on elements central to their refugee protection claim and that they failed to give an accurate picture of their situation. The Minister states that, in his opinion, had the initial panel determining the refugee protection claim been aware of these new facts, the decision would have been different. The Minister is also of the opinion that the other evidence that was considered at the time of the initial hearing is insufficient to justify refugee protection. RESPONDENTS'ARGUMENTS [19] The principal respondent and his wife refuted the Minister's arguments. They alleged that they had indeed lost their respective passports in a river between Mexico and the United States before arriving in Canada. The principal respondent stated that the passports in his name and his wife's name,3 issued in 2003 and found by the Longueuil police at the home of his parents, are not theirs. He stated that they were in England at the time of this seizure and that these documents are fraudulent. He alleged that the signature in the seized passport in his name does not match his signature. In addition, the photographs of his children in these passports are not of his children. He added that the passport in his name issued in 2003 was probably used by a member of his family. DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION TO VACATE A109 [20] Having considered the respondents' testimony, the submissions from both parties and all the documentary evidence, including the evidence submitted, as well as the prevailing country conditions at the time of the original refugee protection claim, the panel allows the Minister's application to vacate for the following reasons. ANALYSIS SUBSECTION 109(1) [21] The panel must first determine whether the decision to allow the claim for refugee protection results from directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter. [22] The determinative issue at this stage is whether or not the passports seized by the Canadian authorities on XXXX XXXX, 2007, and submitted into evidence4 belong to the respondents. [23] The respondents' counsel raised doubts as to the circumstances of the seizure of these passports because the notices of seizure5 were drafted by a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) intelligence officer on generic forms on which the note "CIC Vancouver Admissions" has been crossed out and replaced with [translation] "CBSA MTL." In addition, the notices of seizure were written in the names of the respondents with their address in Montréal, while the search was conducted by the Longueuil police. [24] Although the note drafted by the CBSA officer and the notices of seizure should have been more explicit, the panel nevertheless does not have any information to question the fact that these passports in the names of the respondents were indeed seized at the time of a search conducted by the Longueuil police on XXXX XXXX, 2007, of the respondents' family members' home. [25] What is more, the principal respondent acknowledged that these documents were found at the home of his parents. Yet, he continues to deny that these seized passports belong to them. He stated that these passports were used fraudulently by members of his family. [26] Nevertheless, when questioned further about his statements, the principal respondent was unable to give any details of the fraud in question, to name who in his family would have used these passports without their knowledge, the time period and in what circumstances. He stated merely that his parents had told him that these passports had been used by someone else to come to Canada, but he did not know who. [27] In light of these vague and evasive answers, the panel finds that the principal respondent is not credible when he stated that the seized passports were used fraudulently by members of his family. In addition, these passports do not contain any entry stamps to Canada, which contradicts the argument that someone had used them to come to Canada. [28] Furthermore, these seized passports contain photographs of the respondents, with their names and dates of birth, as well as their personal numbers. They also include their children, with their names and dates of birth, as well as their personal numbers. [29] The principal respondent acknowledged that those were indeed their real names, dates of birth and personal numbers. However, he stated that these passports were fake because the signatures in these passports did not match their signatures and because the photographs of the children were also different. [30] Although the signatures of the names of the principal respondent and of his wife affixed to these passports differ because they are in capital letters, the panel finds that these arguments are insufficient to conclude that these passports do not belong to them. Moreover, the photographs of the children were taken when they were still very young (1 and 4 years old), and at those ages, appearances change quickly. There is no corroborating evidence establishing that these photographs are not those of their children. [31] Furthermore, examining these passports reveals not only that the details on these documents exactly match those of the principal respondent and his wife (photographs, names, dates of birth and personal numbers), but also that the Romanian exit stamps correspond exactly with the date on which they state that they left their country. In fact, in their PIFs, submitted at the time of their claim for refugee protection, they state that they left Romania on XXXX XXXX, 2005, by car, passing through Hungary, and that from there, they took the airplane the same day.6 The seized passports also reveal an entry stamp to Hungary by car on XXXX XXXX, 2005, as well as an exit stamp from Hungary, the same day, by airplane.7 [32] In addition, the analysis of the passport in the name of the principal respondent and that in the name of his wife reveals that they travelled on the same dates between 2003 and 2005. [33] In light of the preceding, the panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, these seized passports, issued in 2003 in the names of the respondents, belong to them. [34] Given the preceding, the panel considers that the respondents provided erroneous information on central elements as part of their refugee protection claim. The evidence on record demonstrates that the male respondent XXXX XXXX and his wife, female respondent XXXX XXXX, were in possession of Romanian passports issued respectively in XXXX 2003 for him and in XXXX 2003 for her, which included their two children, XXXX and XXXX XXXX. [35] As noted in the original PIFs,8 the respondents provided a very detailed story about their fear of persecution in their country of origin. They specifically state that they lived in conditions of extreme poverty and were the victims of numerous violations by reason of their Roma ethnic origin. They state that they had not travelled in the 10 years preceding their refugee protection claims. They also state that they obtained a passport in XXXX 2005, but lost it on the trip to Canada in XXXX 2005. [36] From the analysis of the seized passports,9 a very different story emerges from the one given by the respondents in their refugee protection claim. [37] First of all, the evidence demonstrates that they obtained passports not in XXXX 2005 as alleged in the PIFs, but in XXXX 2003 for him and XXXX 2003 for her. [38] What is more, the principal respondent and his wife state in their PIFs that they had not travelled in the 10 years preceding their claim for refugee protection. They also state that they lived in abject poverty, that they struggled to make ends meet and that they were forced to sell XXXX XXXX XXXX in the street, thus exposing them to police violence. [39] Yet, the analysis of the passports indicates that they made a number of trips outside their country between 2003 and 2005, such as trips to Austria and Hungary and two trips by airplane to France, in XXXX 2003 and XXXX 2004.10 These trips by airplane and the many round trips outside their country are inconsistent with their allegations in the PIFs and with their alleged financial situation. [40] In addition, the principal respondent stated that in the XXXX of 2004, he was violently beaten by Romanian citizens and the police, which left him housebound for XXXX months. He confirmed his statements at the hearing, specifying that this happened in XXXX and XXXX 2004, during which time he was on bedrest as a result of his injuries. [41] Yet, the analysis of the passports indicates that the principal respondent and his wife were outside their country in XXXX 2004, XXXX 2004 and XXXX 2004.11 Once again, this is inconsistent with their account. [42] The panel concludes from this that the respondents misled the initial panel regarding material facts. The panel is of the opinion that the credibility of the principal respondent and his wife is undermined by these major contradictions and omissions to such a point that it undermines all the respondents' allegations in their PIFs, including the events in the period preceding their departure from the country. [43] The panel therefore concludes that, on a balance of probabilities, the Minister established satisfactorily that the respondents directly misrepresented material facts relating to a relevant matter and as a result obtained a positive RPD decision. SUBSECTION 109(2) [44] Having concluded that the Minister met his burden under subsection 109(1), the panel continued the analysis in relation to subsection 109(2). The panel may reject the application if it is satisfied that other sufficient evidence was considered at the time of the first determination to justify refugee protection. [45] Having considered all the evidence, the panel concludes that as the overall credibility of the respondents was undermined, there is no other independent or untainted evidence that was considered at the time of the initial claim to justify refugee protection. The mere fact of being of Roma origin does not on its own justify the granting of refugee protection. CONCLUSION [46] The panel concludes that the RPD's positive decision conferred upon the respondents was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter. Furthermore, the panel determines that the other evidence considered at the time of the initial claim is insufficient to justify refugee protection. [47] Therefore, the refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX; his wife, XXXX XXXX; and their children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, is rejected; as a result, the initial decision has been nullified. MINISTER'S APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 108 OF THE IRPA [48] The Minister alleges that the respondents claimed refugee protection in Canada against Romania on April 1, 2005, and obtained refugee status through the decision rendered by the RPD on July 11, 2005. On May 30, 2006, the respondents obtained permanent resident status in Canada. [49] The Minister alleges that at the time of their refugee protection claim, respondents XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX stated that they did not have passports in their possession. They also stated that their respective passports, which had been issued in XXXX 2005, had been lost between the border of Mexico and the United States. [50] The Minister alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2007, a Romanian passport, No. XXXX, in the name of the male respondent XXXX XXXX12 was seized by the Longueuil police when the home of the principal respondent's parents was searched. This passport was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2003, and was valid until XXXX XXXX, 2008. This passport included the male respondent XXXX XXXX, born XXXX XXXX, 2001. [51] At the time of the same search, a Romanian passport, No. XXXX, in the name of female respondent XXXX XXXX13 was also seized. This passport was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2003, and was valid until XXXX XXXX, 2008. This passport included the female respondent XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 2003. [52] The Minister alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, the RCMP sent him a Romanian passport, No. XXXX, in the name of male respondent XXXX XXXX, issued on XXXX XXXX, 2006, and valid until XXXX XXXX, 2011, in which respondents XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 2003, were included. This passport was used for travel. [53] The Minister alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, a search of the Integrated Customs Enforcement System revealed that on XXXX XXXX, 2008, the female respondent XXXX XXXX was allowed into Canada on the strength of a Romanian passport, No. XXXX. [54] Consequently, the Minister is applying to have the panel determine that the respondents' refugee protection has ceased because they voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, namely Romania, under paragraph 108(1)(a) of the IRPA. RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENTS [55] As mentioned above, the respondents denied that the passports seized14 by the Longueuil police belong to them. [56] They acknowledged, however, that they both applied for and obtained a Romanian passport in XXXX 2006, hence, after obtaining refugee status. They also acknowledged that they travelled using their new Romanian passports. They alleged that they were not immediately aware that they could avail themselves of a refugee travel document. [57] The principal respondent stated that he went to the Romanian Consulate, in the XXXX of 2006, to sign a power of attorney that he sent to Romania in order to quickly obtain new passports for him and his wife, which also included their two minor children, XXXX and XXXX XXXX. [58] He stated that he applied for new Romanian passports for the purpose of obtaining their permanent residence in Canada. He stated that he received a letter from Canadian immigration authorities asking them to submit identity documents when they received their permanent residence. [59] He also stated that after obtaining their permanent residence, they travelled to England using their Romanian passports. He, his wife and children stayed in England for about XXXX months between XXXX 2007 and XXXX 2008 in order to visit his sick brother. In 2010, he went alone on a trip to France and Ireland, again to visit his sick brother. [60] The respondents alleged that they had not returned to Romania. [61] The principal respondent's wife stated that she had also applied for and obtained a new Romanian passport. These steps were taken by her husband. She stated that she used her new passport to travel to England with her husband and children. Like her husband, she stated that she applied for a Romanian passport to obtain her permanent residence. [62] The Minister had asked in his application that she submit her new passport on the day of the hearing. Asked by the panel to submit her new Romanian passport, the female respondent stated that she had lost it. [63] The respondents denied that they wanted to reavail themselves of the protection of Romania. DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION TO CEASE REFUGEE PROTECTION [64] Given that the panel has already rendered a decision on the application to vacate, this is an alternative determination. [65] After considering the respondents' testimony, the submissions of the two parties and all the documentary evidence, including the evidence submitted, the panel allows the Minister's application to cease refugee protection. ANALYSIS The determinative issue in this case is whether, in keeping with paragraph 108(1)(a) of the IRPA, the respondents voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of the country regarding which they were recognized as refugees, that is, Romania. The law [66] Article 1C(1) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention) stipulates that this Convention shall cease to apply to any person who has voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of the country of their nationality. [67] Paragraphs 118 to 125 of the UNHCR Handbook15 set out principles, which, while not determinative, help us to interpret the meaning of "re-avail themself of the protection of the country," an expression that is also used in paragraph 108(1)(a) of the Act.16 [68] The UNHCR Handbook provides three requirements that must be met: the refugee must have acted voluntarily, the refugee must have intended by their action to reavail themselves of the protection of the country of nationality and the refugee must have actually obtained this protection. [69] Next, a distinction should be drawn between the actual reavailment of the protection of the refugee's country of nationality and simply having occasional and incidental contacts with the authorities of that country. In that regard, if a refugee applies for and obtains or renews a passport from their country of nationality, it will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed that they intend to reavail themselves of the protection of that country. [70] Therefore, the act of applying for a passport from one's country of nationality creates a presumption of intention to reavail oneself of the protection of that country. Evidence to the contrary may rebut this presumption. Application of the law in the particular circumstances of the respondents [71] As previously mentioned, the panel found that the seized passports,17 issued in 2003 and valid until 2008, belong, on a balance of probabilities, to the respondents. [72] The panel therefore finds that the claimants were not credible when they stated that they did not have Romanian passports in their possession at the time of the refugee protection claim on April 1, 2005, when they were granted their refugee status on July 11, 2015, and at the time of their application for permanent residence in February 2006. [73] Furthermore, at the time of this application for permanent residence, the evidence submitted by the Minister18 shows that on XXXX XXXX, 2006, the principal respondent and his wife had submitted copies of their respective Romanian passports. It could not be their new passports from Romania, issued on XXXX XXXX, 2006, because on that date, that is, on XXXX XXXX, 2006, they had not yet obtained them. [74] Asked about this inconsistency, the principal respondent gave a muddled answer. He stated that he might have submitted a copy of their passports at the time of their application for residence, but he was not certain. He finished by stating that it was possible that he submitted to the Canadian authorities, for the purpose of their application for permanent residence, a copy of their Romanian passports, obtained in XXXX 2005 and of which he had made copies before leaving his country. [75] The panel rejects this explanation because if they had actually had copies of these previous Romanian passports, they would have submitted them at the time of their claim for refugee protection. Yet, neither the principal respondent nor his wife submitted copies of their previous Romanian passports at the time of their claim for refugee protection.19 Instead, they submitted their voters' cards and birth certificates. [76] Furthermore, the notes from the Canadian authorities reviewing the application for residence20 indicate that the copy of the Romanian passport submitted by the principal respondent was dated XXXX XXXX, 2008, which corresponds to the expiry date of his passport, which was seized by the Longueuil police.21 [77] The panel finds that the principal respondent and his wife were not credible when they stated that they applied for a new Romanian passport in XXXX 2006 in order to obtain their permanent residence, as they already had in their possession a Romanian passport that was still valid. The panel is of the opinion that the respondents did not want to submit their previous passports to the Canadian authorities because they stated, at the time of their claim for refugee protection, that they had lost them. [78] The panel considers that the respondents acted voluntarily when they informed the Canadian authorities that they had lost their previous passports. They also acted voluntarily in going to the Romanian Consulate, applying for new Romanian passports in 2006, and then using them for travel. They were not compelled to do so, especially since, as mentioned, they still had in their possession, on a balance of probabilities, their Romanian passports, which were valid until 2008. [79] As for intention, the respondents have acknowledged that they applied for and obtained, without any difficulties, new Romanian passports in XXXX 2006, and they travelled using these documents. [80] The principal respondent stated that he had travelled using his new Romanian passport to England from XXXX 2007 to XXXX 2008, with his wife and their children. He travelled again, to France and Ireland, between XXXX and XXXX2010. He stated that he did not know at the time that he could have had a refugee travel document. [81] His wife also stated that she travelled using her new Romanian passport to England from XXXX 2007 to XXXX 2008 with their children. Then, as of 2011, she made XXXX other trips using a refugee travel document.22 She stated that she travelled to Germany. [82] The panel does not have the means to find out where the respondents went when they travelled outside Canada after being granted refugee status because the passport of the principal respondent's wife, issued in 2006 by the Romanian government, was reported lost, and the principal respondent's passport only contains entry stamps to Canada. [83] Whatever the case, the respondents travelled using their Romanian passports from XXXX 2007 to XXXX 2008. They did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that this XXXX-month trip was motivated by exceptional circumstances. The principal respondent stated that they went to England because his brother had to be operated on, but that in the end, the operation was not necessary. He did not present anything to support this illness or that his brother's condition required uprooting the entire family for a XXXX-month stay. [84] The respondents, by staying XXXX months in Europe, in possession of their Romanian passports, so as Romanian citizens, put themselves de facto under the protection of the Romanian government, which issued these passports. [85] The principal respondent travelled another time using his Romanian passport between XXXX 2010 and XXXX2010. He stated that he had gone to France and Ireland. He alleged that his brother was to be operated on in Ireland. He did not submit any document attesting to this operation. [86] Asked to indicate when he learned that he could obtain a refugee travel document, the principal respondent answered evasively. He was not sure if he had learned about it in 2009 or in 2010. He stated that he had learned about it from his family and the Roma community. [87] As a result of the principal respondent's evasive answers, the panel does not believe that he only learned a number of years after obtaining his refugee status that he could obtain a refugee travel document. [88] The panel would also like to point that the principal respondent continually answered for his wife when she was questioned about her stays abroad, despite warnings from the panel and his own counsel. [89] Given the major credibility problems of the principal respondent and his wife, the panel does not believe that they learned only in 2010 that they could obtain a refugee travel document. [90] Furthermore, the fact that the respondents had concealed from Canadian authorities, at the time of their application for permanent residence, that they were still in possession of Romanian passports, valid until 2008, demonstrates, according to the panel, voluntariness and an intention to continue to reavail themselves of the protection of Romania. Similarly, the application for new passports in 2006, even though their previous passports were still valid, is further evidence of the respondents' intention to reavail themselves of the protection of the Romanian government. [91] Regarding the fact of having obtained protection, obtaining their passports bears testimony to this. The passports that were applied for in 2006 were issued to them. [92] Regarding the respondents' children, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, these children were minors at the time of the above-mentioned facts, and there is nothing to indicate that their intention differed from that of their parents. [93] Therefore, in light of all the evidence, the panel concludes that the respondents did not rebut the presumption that by applying for and obtaining a new passport from Romania and by travelling with this passport, they voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, Romania. [94] The panel finds that the Minister met his burden of proof and established that the respondents voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of citizenship, Romania. CONCLUSION ON THE APPLICATIONS A109 and A108 [95] After analyzing all the evidence, the panel concludes that the RPD's positive decision conferred on the respondents was a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter. In addition, the panel determines that the other evidence that was considered at the time of the initial determination is insufficient to justify refugee protection. [96] Consequently, the refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX; his spouse, XXXX XXXX; and their children, XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX, is rejected; as a result, the initial decision has been nullified. [97] Alternatively, the panel also allows the application to cease refugee protection made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The panel determines that the respondents' refugee protection has ceased under subsection 108(2) of the IRPA [98] The refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX; his spouse, XXXX XXXX; and their children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, must therefore be rejected, and they must not be considered "Convention refugees" or "persons in need of protection" because they voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality. Jacqueline Schoepfer Jacqueline Schoepfer 21.11.2014 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Document 2, Exhibit M-7, pages 30 to 42. 2 Document 2, Exhibit M-13, pages 63 to 82. 3 Document 2, exhibits M-7 and M-13. 4 Supra, footnote 3. 5 Document 2, Exhibit M-7, pages 30-32 and M-13, pages 63-65. 6 Document 2, Exhibit M-4, page 16, question 23. 7 Document 2, Exhibit M-7, page 38 and M-13, page 72. 8 Document 2, Exhibit M-4 and Exhibit M-11. 9 Supra, footnote 3. 10 Document 2, Exhibit M-7, pages 36 and 40; Exhibit M-13, pages 70 and 71. 11 Document 2, Exhibit M-7, pages 36, 37 and 41; and M-13, pages 70, 71, 72 and 74. 12 Document 2, Exhibit M-7, pages 30 to 42. 13 Document 2, Exhibit M-13, pages 63 to 82. 14 Document 1, Exhibit M-7 and Exhibit M-16. 15 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 16 "Section 108. A claim for refugee protection shall be rejected, and a person is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, in any of the following circumstances: (a) the person has voluntarily reavailed themself of the protection of their country of nationality." 17 Supra, footnote 14. 18 Document 1, Exhibit M-28, FOSS notes. 19 Document 1, Exhibit M-4 and Exhibit M-14. 20 Supra, footnote 18. 21 Document 1, Exhibit M-7, page 34. 22 Document 1, Exhibit M19, page 111. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 18 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD.25.18 (March 31, 2014) RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MB4-01741 MB4-01742 MB4-01743 MB4-01744