TB4-01047

TB4-01047

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD reasonably found, on the record, that the appellant pled guilty, was convicted and served a 32-month custodial sentence for offences involving false identity documents and fraud, and used false UK documents; those facts, combined with the mode of prosecution and prescribed penalties, provide serious reasons to consider the appellant committed serious non-political crimes and thus are excluded under Article 1F(b), so the RPD decision was reasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB4-01047
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister (intervenor): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Intervenor)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Exclusion Article 1 F(b), Credibility Findings, Serious Non Political Crime, Standard of Review, Guilty Plea, Due Process
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Exclusion Article 1 F(b) Credibility Findings Serious Non Political Crime Standard of Review +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Intervenor)

Respondent / Minister (intervenor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention for committing serious non-political crimes outside Canada
  2. 2 Whether the Refugee Protection Division's findings of fact and credibility were reasonable
  3. 3 Whether mitigating circumstances surrounding the guilty plea negate exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD reasonably found, on the record, that the appellant pled guilty, was convicted and served a 32-month custodial sentence for offences involving false identity documents and fraud, and used false UK documents; those facts, combined with the mode of prosecution and prescribed penalties, provide serious reasons to consider the appellant committed serious non-political crimes and thus are excluded under Article 1F(b), so the RPD decision was reasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • RAD confirms determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal
  • Request for a new hearing by a differently constituted RPD panel denied