TB9-19840

TB9-19840

Because the Principal Appellant credibly established, on a balance of probabilities, at least one genuine same‑sex relationship (with B), the correct legal conclusion is that she is a bisexual woman; the RPD erred by overemphasizing a single implausibility and failing to give effect to other credible testimony and applicable SOGIE guidance. Given the documented state‑sponsored nationwide persecution of LGBTQ persons in Nigeria and lack of state protection or safe internal flight, the Principal Appellant and her spouse (as an ally) and the First Minor Appellant (as a family member) face a serious possibility of persecution and are Convention refugees; the Second Minor Appellant would not...

Citation
TB9-19840
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Principal Appellant, Spousal Appellant and First Minor Appellant appeals allowed; Second Minor Appellant appeal dismissed; RPD decision set aside and substituted in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation Identity, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Family Member Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law LGBTQ Rights Law Sexual Orientation Identity Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence +5 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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant is a bisexual woman as claimed
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the proposed new documentary evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and assessed under Singh/Raza factors

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Principal Appellant credibly established, on a balance of probabilities, at least one genuine same‑sex relationship (with B), the correct legal conclusion is that she is a bisexual woman; the RPD erred by overemphasizing a single implausibility and failing to give effect to other credible testimony and applicable SOGIE guidance. Given the documented state‑sponsored nationwide persecution of LGBTQ persons in Nigeria and lack of state protection or safe internal flight, the Principal Appellant and her spouse (as an ally) and the First Minor Appellant (as a family member) face a serious possibility of persecution and are Convention refugees; the Second Minor Appellant would not...

Court Disposition

Principal Appellant, Spousal Appellant and First Minor Appellant appeals allowed; Second Minor Appellant appeal dismissed; RPD decision set aside and substituted in part

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA the RPD determination is set aside and substituted: Principal Appellant, Spousal Appellant and First Minor Appellant are determined to be Convention refugees
  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RPD decision regarding the Second Minor Appellant is confirmed and his appeal is dismissed