MB9-07299

MB9-07299

The RAD dismisses the appeal because the RPD reasonably found the appellants' account not credible on balance of probabilities due to major incoherencies and contradictions (chronology, relocation reasons, port‑of‑entry omissions) and the evidence did not establish a serious possibility that the child would be subjected to FGM or that the family would be persecuted for refusing FGM.

Citation
MB9-07299
Parties
Appellants: XXXX et al.; Respondent: Canada (Minister); Decision Maker (rad Member): Jo-Anne Pickel
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / RAD Reasons and Final Decision Confirming RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Standard of Review, Port of Entry Statements, Documentary Evidence Weight, Chronology Discrepancies, Internal Relocation Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Credibility Findings Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Standard of Review +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX et al.

Appellants

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Jo-Anne Pickel

Decision Maker (rad Member)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / RAD Reasons and Final Decision Confirming RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the Appellants' credibility given incoherencies and contradictions in the chronology of events
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies between port‑of‑entry statements and hearing evidence justified adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the hospital letter should be afforded weight as evidence of mental health affecting testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismisses the appeal because the RPD reasonably found the appellants' account not credible on balance of probabilities due to major incoherencies and contradictions (chronology, relocation reasons, port‑of‑entry omissions) and the evidence did not establish a serious possibility that the child would be subjected to FGM or that the family would be persecuted for refusing FGM.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by RAD
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act