TB8-10187

TB8-10187

The RAD confirmed the RPD because (1) the minor Appellant's claim fails at the threshold given the United States is her country of reference and no argument or evidence was advanced that the US is unable or unwilling to protect her; and (2) the principal Appellant's core allegations lacked credibility due to major unexplained inconsistencies and suspected fraudulent corroborative affidavit and weak documentary support; objective country evidence did not support a realistic risk of forcible FGM or killing for refusal, therefore on balance of probabilities there is no Convention refugee or person in need of protection risk and the appeals are dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-10187
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Religious Persecution, Credibility Findings, Best Interests of the Child, Country of Reference
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Religious Persecution Credibility Findings Best Interests of the Child +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in not assessing risk for the minor Appellant in Nigeria?
  2. 2 Does the principal Appellant face a forward looking risk of persecution in relation to the 2017 demands to circumcise the minor Appellant?
  3. 3 Did the RPD err by failing to consider the principal Appellant's claim of religious persecution?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because (1) the minor Appellant's claim fails at the threshold given the United States is her country of reference and no argument or evidence was advanced that the US is unable or unwilling to protect her; and (2) the principal Appellant's core allegations lacked credibility due to major unexplained inconsistencies and suspected fraudulent corroborative affidavit and weak documentary support; objective country evidence did not support a realistic risk of forcible FGM or killing for refusal, therefore on balance of probabilities there is no Convention refugee or person in need of protection risk and the appeals are dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection confirmed