TC0-06332

TC0-06332

The RAD found the RPD erred in rejecting core aspects of the appellants' testimony and in ignoring relevant NDP evidence; on independent review the Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and Minor Female Appellant were credible, faced a real risk from retaliatory Fulani herdsmen, lacked state protection and no internal flight alternative was available, therefore they are persons in need of protection; the Minor Male Appellant failed to establish fear of persecution in the USA and his claim is denied.

Citation
TC0-06332
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; substitute decision that three appellants are persons in need of protection; one appellant's claim denied.
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Refugee Status Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Refugee Status Determination

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Male Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a real risk of persecution or serious harm from Fulani herdsmen
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in rejecting core aspects of the appellants' testimony and in ignoring relevant NDP evidence; on independent review the Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and Minor Female Appellant were credible, faced a real risk from retaliatory Fulani herdsmen, lacked state protection and no internal flight alternative was available, therefore they are persons in need of protection; the Minor Male Appellant failed to establish fear of persecution in the USA and his claim is denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; substitute decision that three appellants are persons in need of protection; one appellant's claim denied.

Orders

  • Substitute decision: Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and Minor Female Appellant are persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • Confirm RPD decision denying protection to Minor Male Appellant pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.