TB7-00923

TB7-00923

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Principal Appellant and appellants lacked credibility based on significant unexplained inconsistencies and omissions, the proposed new evidence failed s.110(4) or was not probative, and the objective documentary record does not establish a real risk of FGM in Lagos; accordingly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB7-00923
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant (minor): Child Appellant 1; Appellant (minor): Child Appellant 2; Appellant (minor): Child Appellant 3; Appellant (minor): Child Appellant 4; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Child Appellant 1

Appellant (minor)

Child Appellant 2

Appellant (minor)

Child Appellant 3

Appellant (minor)

Child Appellant 4

Appellant (minor)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Raza criteria
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a real risk of FGM or persecution if returned to Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Principal Appellant and appellants lacked credibility based on significant unexplained inconsistencies and omissions, the proposed new evidence failed s.110(4) or was not probative, and the objective documentary record does not establish a real risk of FGM in Lagos; accordingly the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • No referral for redetermination; no protection granted