TB4-04626

TB4-04626

The RPD correctly applied the Jayasekara factors in determining that the Appellant committed a serious non-political crime and is excluded under s.98 IRPA/Article 1F(b); whether the Appellant served a sentence or claims rehabilitation is not relevant to exclusion absent contrary direction from the Supreme Court; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.

Citation
TB4-04626
Parties
Appellant: XXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD finding that Appellant is excluded under s.98 IRPA and Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention
Legal Topics
Exclusion (article 1 F(b)), Interpretation of Convention Provisions, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Exclusion (article 1 F(b)) Interpretation of Convention Provisions Standard of Review

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is excluded under s.98 IRPA and Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention
  2. 2 Whether having served a sentence or alleged rehabilitation precludes exclusion under Article 1F(b)
  3. 3 Whether Jayasekara remains authoritative law for assessing seriousness of crime under Article 1F(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly applied the Jayasekara factors in determining that the Appellant committed a serious non-political crime and is excluded under s.98 IRPA/Article 1F(b); whether the Appellant served a sentence or claims rehabilitation is not relevant to exclusion absent contrary direction from the Supreme Court; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD finding that Appellant is excluded under s.98 IRPA and Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is an excluded person pursuant to s.98 IRPA and Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention
  • The appeal is dismissed