TB9-17400

TB9-17400

The RAD allowed the appeal because, on the balance of probabilities, the Extended Family posed a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria on account of the appellants' refusal of FGM (nexus to particular social groups: women and family), state protection was inadequate (police failed to act), and internal relocation was not viable given the Extended Family's motivation, connections, community information networks and social media — therefore all five family members are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB9-17400
Parties
Principal Appellant: Mr. XXXX; Appellant Spouse: Mrs. XXXX; Appellant Child: Daughter (twin) XXXX; Appellant Child: Daughter XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; appellants found to be Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Particular Social Group, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Convention Refugee Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Internal Relocation State Protection +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXX

Principal Appellant

Mrs. XXXX

Appellant Spouse

Daughter (twin) XXXX

Appellant Child

Daughter XXXX

Appellant Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the family are Convention refugees on account of refusal to submit children to FGM
  2. 2 Whether there is a nexus to a Convention ground (particular social group: women/family)
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Nigeria is available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because, on the balance of probabilities, the Extended Family posed a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria on account of the appellants' refusal of FGM (nexus to particular social groups: women and family), state protection was inadequate (police failed to act), and internal relocation was not viable given the Extended Family's motivation, connections, community information networks and social media — therefore all five family members are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; appellants found to be Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division set aside and claimants declared Convention refugees