MB9-18872

MB9-18872

The RPD erred in its IFA first‑prong analysis by failing to account for evidence showing the agents of persecution had the motive, means and demonstrated ability to locate and contact the appellants throughout Nigeria (including repeated visits, letters, phone contact and an email threat), and by relying on country documents out of context regarding police capacity; given objective evidence of police corruption and the prevalence of FGM, no viable internal flight alternative exists and the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution; accordingly the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-18872
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Decision of the RPD is set aside and substituted: appellants are found to be Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), State Protection, Credibility Findings, Police Corruption and Complicity
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) State Protection Credibility Findings +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether viable internal flight alternatives exist in Nigeria
  2. 2 Whether state protection is available against threats of FGM and related persecution
  3. 3 Whether the agents of persecution have the ability and motivation to locate the appellants anywhere in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in its IFA first‑prong analysis by failing to account for evidence showing the agents of persecution had the motive, means and demonstrated ability to locate and contact the appellants throughout Nigeria (including repeated visits, letters, phone contact and an email threat), and by relying on country documents out of context regarding police capacity; given objective evidence of police corruption and the prevalence of FGM, no viable internal flight alternative exists and the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution; accordingly the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Decision of the RPD is set aside and substituted: appellants are found to be Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision dated June 27, 2019 and substitute a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA.