2019 RLLR 28

2019 RLLR 28

On credible and corroborated testimony supported by country documentation, the panel found the principal claimant is a member of a particular social group (bisexual woman) and faces a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria with no effective state protection or reasonable internal flight alternative; the female minor faces risk of FGM on gender grounds and the male minors face risk based on religious belief for refusing ritual incision; accordingly those four claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA, while the U.S. citizen minor’s claim was rejected for lack of persuasive evidence of risk in the U.S.

Citation
2019 RLLR 28
Parties
Principal Claimant (designated Representative): [XXX]; Minor Claimant (female): [XXX]; Minor Claimant (male): [XXX]; Minor Claimant (u.s. Citizen): [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims of four claimants accepted as Convention refugees; claim of U.S. citizen minor rejected.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation, Religious Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Female Genital Mutilation Religious Persecution +3 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Principal Claimant (designated Representative)

[XXX]

Minor Claimant (female)

[XXX]

Minor Claimant (male)

[XXX]

Minor Claimant (u.s. Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether any claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

On credible and corroborated testimony supported by country documentation, the panel found the principal claimant is a member of a particular social group (bisexual woman) and faces a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria with no effective state protection or reasonable internal flight alternative; the female minor faces risk of FGM on gender grounds and the male minors face risk based on religious belief for refusing ritual incision; accordingly those four claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA, while the U.S. citizen minor’s claim was rejected for lack of persuasive evidence of risk in the U.S.

Court Disposition

Claims of four claimants accepted as Convention refugees; claim of U.S. citizen minor rejected.

Orders

  • Grant refugee protection under section 96 IRPA to principal claimant [XXX] (bisexual) and minor claimants [XXX] (female) and [XXX], [XXX] (male)
  • Reject claim of minor U.S. citizen [XXX] for lack of persuasive evidence of risk in the U.S.