MB9-02557

MB9-02557

Although the RPD made some errors regarding the IFA analysis and certain plausibility findings from the NDP, those errors were not determinative because the RPD's extensive adverse credibility findings—based on inconsistent addresses, unexplained delays in leaving Nigeria, voluntary return to Nigeria, failure to claim asylum in the U.S., and weak probative documentary evidence—were sustainable; viewed as a whole the RPD correctly concluded the Appellants were not credible and therefore not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-02557
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (age 20): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (age 18): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (age 15): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Standard of Review

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (age 20)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (age 18)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (age 15)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative to Port Harcourt was viable
  3. 3 Whether the RPD misapplied documentary country evidence regarding Yoruba practices and FGM

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD made some errors regarding the IFA analysis and certain plausibility findings from the NDP, those errors were not determinative because the RPD's extensive adverse credibility findings—based on inconsistent addresses, unexplained delays in leaving Nigeria, voluntary return to Nigeria, failure to claim asylum in the U.S., and weak probative documentary evidence—were sustainable; viewed as a whole the RPD correctly concluded the Appellants were not credible and therefore not Convention refugees or 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 paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.