MB9-01941

MB9-01941

The RAD dismissed the appeals because, on independent review, the RPD's central credibility findings were correct: the appellants failed to prove on the evidence that family elders had enforceable power to subject the daughters to FGM or that the alleged forced acts were likely despite state protection and parental opposition; minor errors by the RPD (uncle existence, causal link in medical report) did not alter that determinative credibility assessment, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-01941
Parties
Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Reasons and Decision (appeal Heard and Determined)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Asylum Claim of Family With Minor Children, Corroboration of Medical Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Child Protection Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment State Protection Asylum Claim of Family With Minor Children +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Reasons and Decision (appeal Heard and Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants credibly established a risk that family elders would forcibly subject their daughters to FGM and early marriage
  2. 2 Whether a specific paternal uncle identified by the appellant exists and is the feared persecutory agent
  3. 3 Whether elders in the family have rights or power to override parental refusal of FGM

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because, on independent review, the RPD's central credibility findings were correct: the appellants failed to prove on the evidence that family elders had enforceable power to subject the daughters to FGM or that the alleged forced acts were likely despite state protection and parental opposition; minor errors by the RPD (uncle existence, causal link in medical report) did not alter that determinative credibility assessment, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act