TA5-10651

TA5-10651

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the principal claimant was complicit in or failed to disassociate from crimes against humanity while serving in the Zimbabwe police and is therefore excluded under Article 1F(a)/s.98 IRPA; the female claimant re‑availed and lacks a well‑founded fear, so neither is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
TA5-10651
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX); Female Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: B. MacLean; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed; principal claimant excluded under Article 1F(a)/s.98 IRPA; both claimants not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(a), Crimes Against Humanity, Persecution, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Political Opinion, Re‑availment/sojourn, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(a) Crimes Against Humanity Persecution Membership of a Particular Social Group +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Female Claimant

B. MacLean

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister's Counsel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is excluded under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention for crimes against humanity or complicity therein
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a well‑founded fear of persecution or are persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and plausibility of the principal claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the principal claimant was complicit in or failed to disassociate from crimes against humanity while serving in the Zimbabwe police and is therefore excluded under Article 1F(a)/s.98 IRPA; the female claimant re‑availed and lacks a well‑founded fear, so neither is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed; principal claimant excluded under Article 1F(a)/s.98 IRPA; both claimants not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed
  • Principal claimant determined to be a person referred to in Section F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention (excluded)