MB5-00438

MB5-00438

RAD confirmed RPD that appellant failed to establish identity and credibility; refused to admit additional documents as new evidence; on the record there are serious reasons for considering the appellant committed identity fraud prior to entry to Canada, a serious non‑political crime, and thus he is excluded under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA; appeal dismissed.

Citation
MB5-00438
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety (intervenor); Panel: Refugee Appeal Division Panel
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed; appellant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention and s.98 IRPA
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause (article 1 F(b)), Credibility and Identity, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), No Credible Basis (s.107(2) Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Exclusion Clause (article 1 F(b)) Credibility and Identity Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) No Credible Basis (s.107(2) Irpa)

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety (intervenor)

Intervenor

Refugee Appeal Division Panel

Panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established identity and credibility on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether documents proffered after the RPD decision constitute new admissible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA for committing a serious non‑political crime (identity fraud)

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed RPD that appellant failed to establish identity and credibility; refused to admit additional documents as new evidence; on the record there are serious reasons for considering the appellant committed identity fraud prior to entry to Canada, a serious non‑political crime, and thus he is excluded under Article 1F(b)/s.98 IRPA; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed; appellant excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention and s.98 IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirmation of the RPD determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection