MB9-11459

MB9-11459

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the male appellant voluntarily lost permanent resident status in Brazil, failed to prove a serious personal risk there or in Haiti, and material contradictions and omissions in both appellants' evidence and supporting documents rendered their claims not credible; therefore the male appellant is excluded under Article 1E and neither appellant is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-11459
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility Assessment, Voluntary Loss of Status, Internal Flight Alternative, International Obligations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility Assessment Voluntary Loss of Status Internal Flight Alternative International Obligations

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the male appellant is excluded from the Convention under Article 1E due to status in Brazil and voluntary loss of status
  2. 2 Whether the female appellant's alleged fears of persecution on return to Haiti are credible
  3. 3 Whether the male appellant faces a real risk in Brazil if he returns and whether he can regain permanent resident status

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the male appellant voluntarily lost permanent resident status in Brazil, failed to prove a serious personal risk there or in Haiti, and material contradictions and omissions in both appellants' evidence and supporting documents rendered their claims not credible; therefore the male appellant is excluded under Article 1E and neither appellant is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD determination that male appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention and that both appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection