MC0-08972

MC0-08972

The appeals are dismissed because the RAD independently found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' BOCs and testimony, the majority of proffered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA or did not cure credibility defects, and objective evidence did not demonstrate that refusal to submit to FGM/C and tribal markings would likely expose the appellants to persecution; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MC0-08972
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Persecution, Standard of Review, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh factors to be admitted and require an oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether objective country and documentary evidence established a subjective and objective risk of persecution for refusing FGM/C and tribal markings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the RAD independently found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' BOCs and testimony, the majority of proffered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA or did not cure credibility defects, and objective evidence did not demonstrate that refusal to submit to FGM/C and tribal markings would likely expose the appellants to persecution; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act