MC0-09133

MC0-09133

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence (including corroborating documents and affidavits) and by improperly undermining the appellants' presumed truthful testimony based on an insufficient inference about the father's profile; on independent assessment the RAD accepted the appellants' evidence of threats, attack and risk from forced ritual practices, found no viable IFA and inadequate state protection, and therefore substituted its decision granting the appellants Convention refugee status.

Citation
MC0-09133
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal and Substitution of RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Medical Condition (sickle Cell)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Gender Related Persecution Medical Condition (sickle Cell)

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal and Substitution of RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA criteria and was admissible
  3. 3 whether appellants face persecution for refusing ritual practices including female circumcision and scarification

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence (including corroborating documents and affidavits) and by improperly undermining the appellants' presumed truthful testimony based on an insufficient inference about the father's profile; on independent assessment the RAD accepted the appellants' evidence of threats, attack and risk from forced ritual practices, found no viable IFA and inadequate state protection, and therefore substituted its decision granting the appellants Convention refugee status.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • New evidence tendered on appeal rejected as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Substitute decision: Appellants recognized as Convention refugees