MB9-20677

MB9-20677

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in making an overall adverse credibility finding based on minor discrepancies and re‑availment; accepting the appellants' explanations and uncontradicted central evidence, the RAD found a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds (sexual orientation and familial association), no effective state protection and no viable IFA for the Associate Appellant, and therefore substituted a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-20677
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (substitution Pursuant to S.111(1)(b) Irpa)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Re‑availment, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Sexual Orientation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Human Rights LGBTQ Rights Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Re‑availment Particular Social Group +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (substitution Pursuant to S.111(1)(b) Irpa)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established Convention refugee status on Convention grounds (sexual orientation and family association)
  3. 3 Whether state protection or an internal flight alternative exists in Nigeria for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in making an overall adverse credibility finding based on minor discrepancies and re‑availment; accepting the appellants' explanations and uncontradicted central evidence, the RAD found a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds (sexual orientation and familial association), no effective state protection and no viable IFA for the Associate Appellant, and therefore substituted a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees