MB8-08800

MB8-08800

Because the mother had permanent resident status in Brazil with substantially the same rights as nationals and the evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she or her child would face a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk under section 97 IRPA, the RPD decision was correct and the appellants are excluded from protection under Article 1E and section 98 IRPA.

Citation
MB8-08800
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Appeal Division confirms RPD determination
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Persecution, Risk Under Section 97 IRPA, Permanent Resident Status, Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Claims (guideline 4)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Exclusion Under Article 1 E Persecution Risk Under Section 97 IRPA Permanent Resident Status +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's permanent resident status in Brazil gives her substantially the same rights as nationals and thus triggers Article 1E exclusion
  2. 2 Whether alleged discrimination and job dismissal in Brazil amount to persecution
  3. 3 Whether the appellant faces a personal risk under section 97 IRPA if returned to Brazil

Ratio Decidendi

Because the mother had permanent resident status in Brazil with substantially the same rights as nationals and the evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she or her child would face a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk under section 97 IRPA, the RPD decision was correct and the appellants are excluded from protection under Article 1E and section 98 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Appeal Division confirms RPD determination

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Mother (XXXX XXXX) excluded from Refugee Convention under Article 1E and is not a refugee or person in need of protection under section 98 IRPA