TB2-12040

TB2-12040

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimants' account not credible on the balance of probabilities, key allegations lacked contemporaneous corroboration and plausibility (including improbability of persistent threats from an elderly mother living 500+ km away, unreported police interactions, and the sudden introduction of unreferenced family actors), and country evidence showed declining prevalence and legal restrictions on FGM; accordingly there was no serious possibility of persecution nor a personal risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Citation
TB2-12040
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): Johnson Babalola; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Need for Protection (s.97), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Country Condition Evidence, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination Need for Protection (s.97) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment Country Condition Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Johnson Babalola

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants face a real risk of FGM or forcible removal of children by family members

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimants' account not credible on the balance of probabilities, key allegations lacked contemporaneous corroboration and plausibility (including improbability of persistent threats from an elderly mother living 500+ km away, unreported police interactions, and the sudden introduction of unreferenced family actors), and country evidence showed declining prevalence and legal restrictions on FGM; accordingly there was no serious possibility of persecution nor a personal risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected
  • No credible basis for the claim as presented