TB9-10230

TB9-10230

The RPD improperly drew adverse inferences from the absence of corroborating documents; the Principal Appellant's clear, consistent sworn testimony and supporting evidence establish a same-sex relationship and credible risk of persecution in Nigeria; state protection and internal flight alternative are unavailable; therefore the Principal Appellant and the Associate Appellants are Convention refugees while the Additional Appellant, who raised no claim against the US, is not.

Citation
TB9-10230
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Additional Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Non Refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights LGBTQ Rights Sexual Orientation Gender Identity and Expression Credibility Assessment State Protection +2 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Additional Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in drawing negative inferences from absence of documentary evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant established sexual orientation and a same-sex relationship on balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether state protection or an internal flight alternative was available in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD improperly drew adverse inferences from the absence of corroborating documents; the Principal Appellant's clear, consistent sworn testimony and supporting evidence establish a same-sex relationship and credible risk of persecution in Nigeria; state protection and internal flight alternative are unavailable; therefore the Principal Appellant and the Associate Appellants are Convention refugees while the Additional Appellant, who raised no claim against the US, is not.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Appeal of Principal Appellant and Associate Appellants allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own finding that they are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • Appeal of Additional Appellant dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD decision that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.