VB9-06352

VB9-06352

On the evidence and country documentation the appellants lacked sufficient credibility and failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution; parental protection is likely to prevent FGM/tribal markings and the RPD's errors (failure to mention some affidavits) were not material to the outcome; therefore the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision.

Citation
VB9-06352
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Decision Confirming RPD Denial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Country Documentation (ndp)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness +1 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Decision Confirming RPD Denial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility of appellants' testimony and documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether there is a well‑founded fear of persecution from FGM or tribal markings

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and country documentation the appellants lacked sufficient credibility and failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution; parental protection is likely to prevent FGM/tribal markings and the RPD's errors (failure to mention some affidavits) were not material to the outcome; therefore the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 5, 2019 confirmed