Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the RAD reasonably upheld Article 1E exclusion based on the Applicants’ continued Italian status.
The RPD did not err: the appellant's numerous and significant omissions and late additions to his Basis of Claim undermined his credibility; the evidence did not establish that cumulative discrimination in Brazil amounted to persecution; the appellant could relocate to Brazil (presence of family and ability to obtain visa) and thus is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant voluntarily lost his Brazilian permanent resident status by being absent more than two years, failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution in Brazil or Haiti and had material omissions and contradictions undermining credibility; accordingly he is excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention and s.98 IRPA and the RPD's decision stands.
Source excerpt
The appellant is excluded under Article 1E and section 98 IRPA because he previously held Brazilian permanent resident status that conferred rights substantially similar to nationals, but he voluntarily lost that status by remaining outside Brazil for over two years and cannot reasonably justify the absence or reacquire status; his testimony was found non‑credible and corroborating documents were given no probative value, and he therefore failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk in Brazil or Haiti, so the RPD decision to exclude and deny protection is within a range of…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the documents filed on appeal were inadmissible and insufficient to overturn the RPD's finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant had regularized status in Brazil and was therefore excluded from Convention protection under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA; alternatively, the appellant failed to establish subjective and objectively well‑founded fear under sections 96 and 97 due to credibility deficiencies, so the RPD's decision was correct and requires no rehearing.
Source excerpt
The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the balance of probabilities the adult Haitian appellants were excluded under Article 1E because prima facie they had been granted Brazilian permanent resident status which conferred rights substantially similar to Brazilian nationals, they had likely lost that status through absence of over two years (voluntary departure), they could return to Brazil and pursue restoration or obtain citizenship via their Brazilian child, and they failed to establish a real risk of persecution in Haiti or Brazil; the minor, as a Brazilian citizen, is neither a Convention refugee…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the RAD reasonably concluded the applicant had permanent resident status in Brazil and was excluded under Article 1E.
The RAD affirmed the RPD because the appellant's testimony contained multiple unexplained contradictions and omissions that fatally undermined his credibility, and on that basis the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, risk of torture or to life; accordingly the appeal was dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RPD correctly applied the Zeng criteria and concluded appellants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because they acquired Brazilian permanent resident status, left Brazil voluntarily and did not seek to maintain or reinstate that status; the evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution in Brazil or Haiti by reason of race or nationality; best interests/separation of the child are not grounds for refugee protection, therefore the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RAD upheld the RPD: the appellant had obtained Brazilian permanent resident status (rights comparable to nationals), had lost that status through voluntary absence of more than two years, failed to establish persecution in Brazil or a serious personal risk in Haiti under ss.96/97 IRPA, and therefore is excluded under Article 1E of the Convention; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
Explore more
