TB9-18422

TB9-18422

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings, conducted an independent correctness review, found the Principal Appellant and two daughters face a serious possibility of persecution due to risk of forced FGC coupled with inadequate state protection and no viable internal flight alternative, and therefore set aside and substituted the RPD decision for those appellants as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA while confirming the RPD decision for the remaining appellants who did not establish risk.

Citation
TB9-18422
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Richard Odeleye; Counsel for the Minister: Minister of Immigration (represented); Panel/decision‑maker: Rita Aggarwala
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Disposition of Appeal Pursuant to S.111 IRPA (judicial Review/appeal Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside and substituted for Principal Appellant and two daughters and confirmed for three other family members
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Citizenship and Exclusion From Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Female Genital Mutilation Credibility Findings State Protection 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Richard Odeleye

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration (represented)

Counsel for the Minister

Rita Aggarwala

Panel/decision‑maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Disposition of Appeal Pursuant to S.111 IRPA (judicial Review/appeal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in negative credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant and her children meet the definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA based on risk of forced FGC
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection exists in Nigeria for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings, conducted an independent correctness review, found the Principal Appellant and two daughters face a serious possibility of persecution due to risk of forced FGC coupled with inadequate state protection and no viable internal flight alternative, and therefore set aside and substituted the RPD decision for those appellants as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA while confirming the RPD decision for the remaining appellants who did not establish risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside and substituted for Principal Appellant and two daughters and confirmed for three other family members

Orders

  • Set aside and substituted RPD decision with findings that Principal Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA
  • Set aside and substituted RPD decision with findings that minor appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees pursuant to s.96 IRPA