MB9-26385

MB9-26385

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellant failed to establish his identity given contradictory evidence and lack of acceptable identity documents, and independently, there are serious reasons to believe he committed a serious non-political offence (identity fraud) shown by guilty plea and evidence of multiple...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB9-26385
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Exclusion, Article 1(f)(b), Identity, Identity Fraud, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Convention Exclusion Article 1(f)(b) Identity Identity Fraud Standard of Review

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety Canada

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's identity was established
  2. 2 Whether appellant is excluded from Convention protection under Article 1(F)(b) for committing a serious non-political crime
  3. 3 Whether the offence of identity fraud is a 'serious' crime in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellant failed to establish his identity given contradictory evidence and lack of acceptable identity documents, and independently, there are serious reasons to believe he committed a serious non-political offence (identity fraud) shown by guilty plea and evidence of multiple identities/documents over a long period; mitigating factors do not rebut the presumption of seriousness, therefore exclusion applies and protection is denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; no refugee protection granted