VB9-03759

VB9-03759

The RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own: on the record the Appellants established a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria and that state protection is ineffective for FGM victims; the RPD had no meaningful advantage on credibility, the IFA was unreasonable under the first prong, the Principal Appellant has nexus as a member of a particular social group (woman facing gender‑related persecution) and is a Convention refugee, and the Associate Appellant faces a risk to life and is a person in need of protection.

Citation
VB9-03759
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Substituted Decision Under S.111(1)(b) IRPA
Outcome
Decision of the Refugee Protection Division set aside and substituted: Principal Appellant found to be a Convention refugee; Associate Appellant found to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Persecution Female Genital Mutilation Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Substituted Decision Under S.111(1)(b) IRPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative to Port Harcourt or Benin City was reasonable
  3. 3 Availability of state protection in Nigeria for FGM victims

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own: on the record the Appellants established a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria and that state protection is ineffective for FGM victims; the RPD had no meaningful advantage on credibility, the IFA was unreasonable under the first prong, the Principal Appellant has nexus as a member of a particular social group (woman facing gender‑related persecution) and is a Convention refugee, and the Associate Appellant faces a risk to life and is a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Refugee Protection Division set aside and substituted: Principal Appellant found to be a Convention refugee; Associate Appellant found to be a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD decision dated April 29, 2019 and substitute findings that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee and the Associate Appellant is a person in need of protection