MB9-23571

MB9-23571

Appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA because credible documentary evidence established prima facie Brazilian permanent resident status conferring rights substantially similar to nationals, the appellant voluntarily lost that status and failed to rebut prima facie evidence or show a real risk if returned to Haiti, so exclusion and rejection of the claim are warranted.

Citation
MB9-23571
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause Article 1 E, Section 98 IRPA, Third Country Permanent Resident Status, Zeng Factors, Credibility and Omissions in Basis of Claim Form, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Law Exclusion Clause Article 1 E Section 98 IRPA Third Country Permanent Resident Status Zeng Factors +2 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention and s.98 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellant held status in Brazil substantially similar to nationals
  3. 3 Whether loss of that status was voluntary

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA because credible documentary evidence established prima facie Brazilian permanent resident status conferring rights substantially similar to nationals, the appellant voluntarily lost that status and failed to rebut prima facie evidence or show a real risk if returned to Haiti, so exclusion and rejection of the claim are warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed