VA8-02028

VA8-02028

The panel found that the evidence showed only verbal threats and pressure from in‑laws, no evidence of forced or physical attempts to subject the daughters to FGM, and the claimants' conduct (travel to and return from safe countries without seeking protection) undermined subjective fear; on the balance of probabilities there is no well‑founded fear nor substantial grounds to believe they would face torture, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VA8-02028
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Persecution by Family Members, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries (reavailment), Compelling Reasons, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Persecution Child Protection Female Genital Mutilation Persecution by Family Members Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries (reavailment) +5 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether threats and harassment amount to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the evidence showed only verbal threats and pressure from in‑laws, no evidence of forced or physical attempts to subject the daughters to FGM, and the claimants' conduct (travel to and return from safe countries without seeking protection) undermined subjective fear; on the balance of probabilities there is no well‑founded fear nor substantial grounds to believe they would face torture, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.