TB8-09020

TB8-09020

On correctness review the RAD concluded the Associate Appellant can obtain adequate protection in the UK and thus does not need Canadian protection; the RPD erred in excluding the Principal Appellant because her possession and use of false identification were rendered morally involuntary by trafficking and duress and, in any event, were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion; Nigeria cannot provide adequate state protection nor a safe and reasonable IFA, therefore the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB8-09020
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Associate Appellant's appeal dismissed; Principal Appellant's appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Duress and Voluntariness, Gender Based Persecution, Child Protection, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Human Trafficking Law Family Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +5 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 7 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Associate Appellant's claim should be assessed with reference to the United Kingdom
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection for committing a serious non-political crime (possession/use of false identification)
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection and a viable internal flight alternative exist for the Principal Appellant in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

On correctness review the RAD concluded the Associate Appellant can obtain adequate protection in the UK and thus does not need Canadian protection; the RPD erred in excluding the Principal Appellant because her possession and use of false identification were rendered morally involuntary by trafficking and duress and, in any event, were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion; Nigeria cannot provide adequate state protection nor a safe and reasonable IFA, therefore the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Associate Appellant's appeal dismissed; Principal Appellant's appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal of the Associate Appellant dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA.
  • Appeal of the Principal Appellant allowed; the RPD determination set aside and replaced with a determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of IRPA.