MB9-05067

MB9-05067

The appeal is dismissed because, on an independent assessment, the appellants were not credible on key facts underpinning their claim (existence of disputed land, alleged poisoning of parents, forced FGM causation, attempted kidnappings and agents searching for them). Although some post‑perfection evidence was admitted, it was not central or sufficiently probative to overturn the credibility findings; the Gender Guidelines were applied meaningfully and their omission from the RPD written reasons was not fatal; therefore the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-05067
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Associate appellant (name redacted); Minor Appellant: Minor appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Gender Based Violence Law Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation State Protection Procedural Fairness +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal appellant (name redacted)

Principal Appellant

Associate appellant (name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Minor appellant (name redacted)

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were credible
  2. 2 Whether the Gender Guidelines (Guideline 4) were applied meaningfully
  3. 3 Admissibility of post‑perfection evidence under Rule 29 and s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza factors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on an independent assessment, the appellants were not credible on key facts underpinning their claim (existence of disputed land, alleged poisoning of parents, forced FGM causation, attempted kidnappings and agents searching for them). Although some post‑perfection evidence was admitted, it was not central or sufficiently probative to overturn the credibility findings; the Gender Guidelines were applied meaningfully and their omission from the RPD written reasons was not fatal; therefore the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA