MB9-21802

MB9-21802

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD’s adverse credibility findings were reasonable on the record, the proffered new evidence did not meet subsection 110(4) IRPA and/or lacked probative value, complaints about prior counsel did not establish prejudice or comply with notice requirements, and appellants failed to prove a well‑founded fear or need for protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA (including risks of FGM, tribal markings, father‑in‑law persecution or Fulani attacks).

Citation
MB9-21802
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (age 9): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (age 5): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (age 11): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (age 3): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Ineffective Legal Representation, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Tribal Markings, State Protection, Best Interests of the Child, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Ineffective Legal Representation Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Tribal Markings +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (age 9)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (age 5)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (age 11)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (age 3)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) correctly assessed credibility
  2. 2 Whether post‑RPD evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA for admission as new evidence
  3. 3 Whether alleged ineffective assistance of counsel deprived appellants of a fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD’s adverse credibility findings were reasonable on the record, the proffered new evidence did not meet subsection 110(4) IRPA and/or lacked probative value, complaints about prior counsel did not establish prejudice or comply with notice requirements, and appellants failed to prove a well‑founded fear or need for protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA (including risks of FGM, tribal markings, father‑in‑law persecution or Fulani attacks).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act