Federal Court of Canada Dismisses Refugee Protection Appeal

Strategic Insights -

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an appeal by Ehimwenma Cynthia Inneh, a Nigerian citizen who claimed refugee protection in Canada on the basis of her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. The court found the decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to be reasonable and fair, despite the applicant's arguments that the RAD breached its duty of procedural fairness and made an unreasonable decision.

Key Takeaways:

  • The applicant, Ehimwenma Cynthia Inneh, is a Nigerian citizen who claimed refugee protection in Canada on the basis of her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman.
  • The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejected the applicant's claim, finding that she had not credibly established her sexual orientation and that the new evidence she presented was not credible.
  • The applicant argued that the RAD breached its duty of procedural fairness by rejecting her new evidence without holding an oral hearing.
  • The court found that the RAD's decision was reasonable and fair, and that they properly applied the criteria set out in section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • The court also found that the RAD's explanation for rejecting the applicant's new evidence was clear and followed a clear chain of reasoning.
  • The applicant conceded that her testimony and the RPD hearing were riddled with contradictions, which further supported the RAD's decision.
  • The court ultimately dismissed the applicant's judicial review application and found that there was no question for certification.

Statistics:

  • The applicant, Ehimwenma Cynthia Inneh, is a 38-year-old Nigerian citizen.
  • The applicant claimed refugee protection in Canada on the basis of her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman.
  • The RAD rejected the applicant's claim on the basis of her lack of credibility.
  • The applicant attempted to file new evidence in support of her claim, but it was rejected by the RAD based on credibility concerns.
  • The applicant's affidavit statement that she was "not involved in same-sex activities" was deemed contradictory by the RAD and considered a material inconsistency.

Sources:

  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, sections 110(4) and 110(6)
  • Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, Rule 29(4)
  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), at paras 12-15;95
  • Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 96
  • A.B. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 61, at para 17
  • Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, at para 19
  • Vargas Cervantes v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 791, at para 16