TB8-18637

TB8-18637

The RPD erred by focusing on the authenticity of the Appellants' relationship rather than on their claimed sexual orientation and by drawing adverse credibility inferences that were unsustainable; part of the new evidence was admissible and, when considered with the credible testimony and corroborating letters and community documentation, the totality of evidence establishes the Appellants identify as bisexual and face persecution in Nigeria with no state protection or viable IFA, making them Convention refugees.

Citation
TB8-18637
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Particular Social Group, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Sexual Orientation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Lgbtq+ Rights Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Particular Social Group Internal Flight Alternative +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Appellants not credible regarding their sexual orientation
  2. 2 Whether proposed evidence on appeal is admissible as new evidence under RAD rules and jurisprudence
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants face a lack of state protection or internal flight alternative in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by focusing on the authenticity of the Appellants' relationship rather than on their claimed sexual orientation and by drawing adverse credibility inferences that were unsustainable; part of the new evidence was admissible and, when considered with the credible testimony and corroborating letters and community documentation, the totality of evidence establishes the Appellants identify as bisexual and face persecution in Nigeria with no state protection or viable IFA, making them Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RAD decision of the RPD set aside