TB8-19942

TB8-19942

The tribunal rejected the claims because it found the principal claimant not credible and preferred objective documentary evidence which indicates that refusal to permit FGM typically results in social ostracism rather than physical harm or death; the claimants therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that they would, on the balance of probabilities, face life‑threatening or torture‑level risk on return, and accordingly are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TB8-19942
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants not found to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Psychological Evidence Weighting
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Administrative Law Female Genital Mutilation Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground (FGM/gender)
  2. 2 Whether claimants would face risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) is viable

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal rejected the claims because it found the principal claimant not credible and preferred objective documentary evidence which indicates that refusal to permit FGM typically results in social ostracism rather than physical harm or death; the claimants therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that they would, on the balance of probabilities, face life‑threatening or torture‑level risk on return, and accordingly are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants not found to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; no protection granted