TB7-20771

TB7-20771

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to consider corroborating medical and documentary evidence establishing that FGM was performed on the Minor Appellant; because the effects of FGM amount to compelling reasons under s.108(4), the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the Minor Appellant is a Convention refugee. The RAD rejected the proposed affidavit as not meeting s.110(4) requirements and declined an oral hearing under s.110(6). For the Principal and Spousal Appellants the RAD found no error in the RPD's conclusion that Abuja constitutes a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative and therefore confirmed the RPD decision dismissing their claims.

Citation
TB7-20771
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Spousal Appellant; Appellant: Minor Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / RAD Decision (final Determination on Appeal)
Outcome
Minor Appellant appeal allowed; Principal and Spousal Appellants appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Compelling Reasons Exception (s.108(4)), Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Oral Hearing (s.110(6))
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Spousal Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / RAD Decision (final Determination on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings about the occurrence of FGM on the Minor Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Minor Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee or under the s.108(4) compelling reasons exception given FGM
  3. 3 Whether the Principal and Spousal Appellants have a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) to Abuja or Port Harcourt

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to consider corroborating medical and documentary evidence establishing that FGM was performed on the Minor Appellant; because the effects of FGM amount to compelling reasons under s.108(4), the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the Minor Appellant is a Convention refugee. The RAD rejected the proposed affidavit as not meeting s.110(4) requirements and declined an oral hearing under s.110(6). For the Principal and Spousal Appellants the RAD found no error in the RPD's conclusion that Abuja constitutes a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative and therefore confirmed the RPD decision dismissing their claims.

Court Disposition

Minor Appellant appeal allowed; Principal and Spousal Appellants appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination and substitute a determination that the Minor Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA
  • Confirm the RPD decision that the Principal and Spousal Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA