MB9-13255

MB9-13255

The RPD's decision is upheld because the Principal Appellant was found not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies (notably omission of the father-in-law's alleged opposition and inconsistency with country evidence on typical age for FGM) and because the Appellants failed to demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution (including failure to seek protection in the UK and US); the Male Minor Appellant advanced no claim against his country of reference (US). This justifies confirming the RPD's finding that the Appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-13255
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility, Subjective Fear of Persecution, Country Evidence, Humanitarian and Compassionate (h&c) Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Subjective Fear of Persecution Country Evidence Humanitarian and Compassionate (h&c) Grounds

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the Principal Appellant
  2. 2 Whether Appellants established a subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether Male Minor Appellant advanced a claim against his country of reference (US)

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's decision is upheld because the Principal Appellant was found not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies (notably omission of the father-in-law's alleged opposition and inconsistency with country evidence on typical age for FGM) and because the Appellants failed to demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution (including failure to seek protection in the UK and US); the Male Minor Appellant advanced no claim against his country of reference (US). This justifies confirming the RPD's finding that the Appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD decision that the Appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act