MB9-08739

MB9-08739

The RAD upheld the RPD because the PA failed to identify clearly the agents of persecution and gave inconsistent testimony about the risk and timing of the rituals; documentary country evidence in the NDP did not establish that these appellants face a real risk of FGM or supernatural retaliation; the proffered 2016 document was not new or reasonably unavailable and thus inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-08739
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (appeal Heard; Decision Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Traditional Ritual/juju, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence S.110(4) IRPA, Well Founded Fear, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Evidence Law Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Traditional Ritual/juju Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence S.110(4) IRPA +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (appeal Heard; Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant and minors have established credibility
  2. 2 Whether there is an objective risk of persecution for FGM
  3. 3 Whether there is an objective risk from traditional ritual/supernatural sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD because the PA failed to identify clearly the agents of persecution and gave inconsistent testimony about the risk and timing of the rituals; documentary country evidence in the NDP did not establish that these appellants face a real risk of FGM or supernatural retaliation; the proffered 2016 document was not new or reasonably unavailable and thus inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Document (RIR NGA105628.E, 2016) not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA