MB9-16619

MB9-16619

The RPD committed legal error by improperly discounting corroborative third‑party evidence and by failing to properly assess whether the risk would follow the appellants to Port Harcourt; objective country information and the appellants' uncontested evidence established a real risk of persecution without effective state protection, therefore the RAD substituted its own decision finding the appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
MB9-16619
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Forced Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness and Counsel Competence, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Family Law Criminal Law Forced Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Credibility Assessment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether third‑party corroborative evidence was improperly dismissed
  3. 3 Whether a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Port Harcourt

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD committed legal error by improperly discounting corroborative third‑party evidence and by failing to properly assess whether the risk would follow the appellants to Port Harcourt; objective country information and the appellants' uncontested evidence established a real risk of persecution without effective state protection, therefore the RAD substituted its own decision finding the appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substitute decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act