MB8-26357

MB8-26357

The appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA because he holds permanent resident status in Brazil granting rights similar to nationals; the RPD's adverse credibility finding about the sole alleged incident in Brazil was reasonable and fatal to his claim of a forward-looking risk of persecution, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB8-26357
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; exclusion under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA upheld; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause, Credibility Assessment, Permanent Residence, Forward Looking Risk, Asylum Shopping
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Clause Credibility Assessment Permanent Residence Forward Looking Risk Asylum Shopping

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA due to permanent residence in Brazil
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding about the alleged attack in Brazil was reasonable
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious possibility of persecution or other protections-triggering risk on return to Brazil

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA because he holds permanent resident status in Brazil granting rights similar to nationals; the RPD's adverse credibility finding about the sole alleged incident in Brazil was reasonable and fatal to his claim of a forward-looking risk of persecution, and the objective country evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Brazil.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; exclusion under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA upheld; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; dismissal of appeal by RAD