MC0-05727

MC0-05727

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable because they relied on minor inconsistencies and port-of-entry errors without considering corroborative documents and reasonable explanations; admitted country and corroborative evidence established a credible objective risk from state agents, lack of state protection nationwide, and a nexus to a particular social group (family of a human rights advocate), therefore the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
MC0-05727
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 14); Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 11); Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 7); Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 4); Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substitute decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee Determination, Particular Social Group (family of Human Rights Advocate), Country Conditions, State Protection, New Evidence Admissibility, Gender Based Persecution (fgm), Guideline 3 (children), Guideline 4 (women)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Convention Refugee Determination Particular Social Group (family of Human Rights Advocate) Country Conditions State Protection +4 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 14)

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 11)

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 7)

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 4)

Minor Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider corroborative documents and port-of-entry context
  3. 3 Whether there is an objective basis for fear of persecution by Nigerian authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable because they relied on minor inconsistencies and port-of-entry errors without considering corroborative documents and reasonable explanations; admitted country and corroborative evidence established a credible objective risk from state agents, lack of state protection nationwide, and a nexus to a particular social group (family of a human rights advocate), therefore the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substitute decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees
  • Two legal opinion letters from Lagos law firms (dated XXXX 2020) admitted as new evidence; psychotherapy assessment report rejected as inadmissible new evidence