MC0-01794

MC0-01794

The RAD found the RPD erred by unduly discounting the Principal Appellant's consistent testimony, documentary exhibits and newly admitted photographs; on the balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant established she was in a forced relationship, suffered serious abuse, faces a real risk of persecution throughout Nigeria as a member of the particular social group 'women who fear gender‑based violence', state protection is inadequate and no viable internal flight alternative exists, therefore she is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; the RPD decision for the Minor Appellant is upheld.

Citation
MC0-01794
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed for the Principal Appellant; appeal dismissed for the Minor Appellant; Principal Appellant declared a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; RPD decision maintained for Minor Appellant.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Guideline 4 (women Who Fear Gender Based Persecution), Female Genital Mutilation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the Principal Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution (forward‑facing risk) in Nigeria
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Nigeria is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by unduly discounting the Principal Appellant's consistent testimony, documentary exhibits and newly admitted photographs; on the balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant established she was in a forced relationship, suffered serious abuse, faces a real risk of persecution throughout Nigeria as a member of the particular social group 'women who fear gender‑based violence', state protection is inadequate and no viable internal flight alternative exists, therefore she is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; the RPD decision for the Minor Appellant is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed for the Principal Appellant; appeal dismissed for the Minor Appellant; Principal Appellant declared a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; RPD decision maintained for Minor Appellant.

Orders

  • RPD decision set aside for the Principal Appellant
  • Substitute decision: Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act