MC1-00764

MC1-00764

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and assessment of objective evidence were correct; the appellants' material omissions in their basis of claim were not reasonably explained, the post‑decision evidence admitted did not credibly or centrally alter the credibility or establish a risk of persecution or forced FGM, and the medical/psychological reports did not, on balance, establish the claimed future risk.

Citation
MC1-00764
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Risk of Persecution, Admission of New Evidence, Medical/psychological Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk of Persecution Admission of New Evidence Medical/psychological Evidence

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether objective evidence and new evidence establish a risk of persecution or forced FGM
  3. 3 Whether medical/psychological reports required different assessment or an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and assessment of objective evidence were correct; the appellants' material omissions in their basis of claim were not reasonably explained, the post‑decision evidence admitted did not credibly or centrally alter the credibility or establish a risk of persecution or forced FGM, and the medical/psychological reports did not, on balance, establish the claimed future risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of February 10, 2021 confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Request for an oral hearing denied