MB9-07279

MB9-07279

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the determinative issue was credibility and the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence, the post‑decision affidavit did not contain new admissible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, and objective documentary sources did not support a real risk of persecution by Oro spiritualists or forcible FGM of the minors; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-07279
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk, Cultural/religious Practices (oro Spiritualists), Standard of Review/deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk Cultural/religious Practices (oro Spiritualists) Standard of Review/deference

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit sworn after the RPD decision met s.110(4) IRPA admissibility requirements
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution by the half-brother or Oro spiritualists

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the determinative issue was credibility and the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence, the post‑decision affidavit did not contain new admissible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, and objective documentary sources did not support a real risk of persecution by Oro spiritualists or forcible FGM of the minors; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Post‑decision affidavit not admitted as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA