TB8-18461

TB8-18461

The appeal was dismissed because cumulative, material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' accounts and weaknesses in supporting documents undermined credibility and precluded establishing a nexus between alleged ill‑treatment and a perceived political opinion; the FGM evidence did not demonstrate a well‑founded or countrywide risk; no new evidence was filed to warrant a RAD hearing, therefore the RPD decision was upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-18461
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (wife): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Perceived Political Opinion, Standard of Review, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Persecution Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment +4 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (child)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face persecution due to perceived political opinion via association with wife's brother
  2. 2 Whether daughters face a real risk of female genital mutilation amounting to persecution
  3. 3 Whether credibility findings of RPD should be afforded deference

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because cumulative, material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' accounts and weaknesses in supporting documents undermined credibility and precluded establishing a nexus between alleged ill‑treatment and a perceived political opinion; the FGM evidence did not demonstrate a well‑founded or countrywide risk; no new evidence was filed to warrant a RAD hearing, therefore the RPD decision was upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision upheld