VB9-04513

VB9-04513

The RAD independently reviewed the record and confirmed the RPD’s adverse credibility findings: the Principal Appellant’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and evolved when challenged; the proposed new sworn statement was not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA; documentary and objective evidence did not establish that the children, including the daughter, face a serious risk of FGM or persecution due to the mother’s alleged sexual orientation; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is upheld.

Citation
VB9-04513
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Sexual Orientation Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Child Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment Sexual Orientation Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Child Protection

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Principal Appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit proposed new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Female Minor Associate Appellant faces a serious risk of FGM on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record and confirmed the RPD’s adverse credibility findings: the Principal Appellant’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and evolved when challenged; the proposed new sworn statement was not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA; documentary and objective evidence did not establish that the children, including the daughter, face a serious risk of FGM or persecution due to the mother’s alleged sexual orientation; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal; confirmation of RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection