MB9-09082

MB9-09082

Although the RPD made two limited analytical errors, its central credibility findings and evaluation of objective and documentary evidence were justified; the post‑decision medical letter was irrelevant to the core risk allegations and was not admitted; therefore appellants failed to prove a real risk of persecution, torture, death or cruel treatment and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-09082
Parties
Appellant Designated Representative: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Appellant Spouse: Associate Appellant (spouse, name redacted); Appellant Minor Child: Minor Appellant 1 (child, name redacted); Appellant Minor Child: Minor Appellant 2 (child, name redacted); Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk to Life and Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk Convention Refugee Determination Risk to Life and Torture

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant Designated Representative

Associate Appellant (spouse, name redacted)

Appellant Spouse

Minor Appellant 1 (child, name redacted)

Appellant Minor Child

Minor Appellant 2 (child, name redacted)

Appellant Minor Child

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether new medical evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and related tests
  3. 3 Whether the minors' claims were assessed independently and sufficiently

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD made two limited analytical errors, its central credibility findings and evaluation of objective and documentary evidence were justified; the post‑decision medical letter was irrelevant to the core risk allegations and was not admitted; therefore appellants failed to prove a real risk of persecution, torture, death or cruel treatment and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • New medical evidence not admitted as relevant