VC0-00809

VC0-00809

The RAD found that while Mexican arrest warrants establish the existence of criminal charges, the warrants lack necessary detail and the Minister's supporting open-source evidence is of low weight; collectively the evidence does not meet the "serious reasons for considering" threshold for exclusion under Article 1F(b) as to money laundering, possession of criminal proceeds and fraud; independently the Principal Appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) risk in Brazil (or Mexico for associate appellants), therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD's ultimate determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection...

Citation
VC0-00809
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed for different reasons under s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA; Principal Appellant not excluded under Article 1F(b) but protection claims rejected on merits (no serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) risk)
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Serious Non Political Crime, Money Laundering, Possession of Criminal Proceeds, Fraud, New Evidence / Singh Raza Criteria, Country Risk (mexico, Brazil), Sealing Order
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Serious Non Political Crime Money Laundering Possession of Criminal Proceeds +4 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Minister proved exclusion under Article 1F(b) for money laundering, possession of proceeds and fraud
  2. 2 Whether Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) risk in Brazil or Mexico
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted and whether oral hearing required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that while Mexican arrest warrants establish the existence of criminal charges, the warrants lack necessary detail and the Minister's supporting open-source evidence is of low weight; collectively the evidence does not meet the "serious reasons for considering" threshold for exclusion under Article 1F(b) as to money laundering, possession of criminal proceeds and fraud; independently the Principal Appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) risk in Brazil (or Mexico for associate appellants), therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD's ultimate determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed for different reasons under s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA; Principal Appellant not excluded under Article 1F(b) but protection claims rejected on merits (no serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) risk)

Orders

  • Continue RPD sealing order: identity of Witness X and their evidence in the RAD record to remain sealed and redacted in public reasons
  • Parties to be provided redacted and unredacted versions; redacted version to be filed at Federal Court if judicial review sought and unredacted provided to Federal Court under seal