4 total
Judicial review of an RPD decision rejecting a refugee claim for having no credible basis was dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her refugee protection claim and concluding it had no credible basis.
She argued procedural unfairness due to the RPD's handling of concerns with her documentary evidence and submitted the decision was unreasonable.
The Federal Court found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant could not address the RPD's queries since her husband procured the documents, and she provided no evidence of prejudice.
The Court also held the RPD's credibility findings were transparent and intelligible, dismissing the application.
Judicial review allowed; RPD failed to properly assess refugee's subjective intention to reavail state protection.
The applicant, a citizen of Israel who had obtained refugee status in Canada, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that ceased her refugee protection.
The RPD found she had reavailed herself of Israel's protection by travelling there multiple times and obtaining an Israeli passport.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly assess the applicant's subjective intention, including protective measures she took while in Israel, as required by binding Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence in Galindo Camayo.
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed; credibility findings reasonable and minor transcript gaps did not breach procedural fairness.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) affirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their refugee claims.
The applicants alleged fear of persecution by a criminal syndicate in Nigeria related to the principal applicant's report on fraudulent bank loans.
The RAD found the applicants lacked credibility, largely due to failure to provide supporting evidence such as the report itself.
The applicants argued the RAD's decision was unreasonable and that procedural fairness was breached because of gaps in the audio recording of the RPD hearing and because the RAD raised new credibility issues.
The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and concluded that the minor gaps in the hearing transcript did not prevent the Court from reviewing the decision.
The Court dismissed the application for judicial review.
Judicial review dismissed as the RPD reasonably found the applicants lacked subjective fear and were not persecuted.
The applicants, stateless Palestinians formerly residing in the UAE, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision denying their claims for refugee protection.
The RPD found they lacked subjective fear, in part due to a failure to claim asylum in the United States, and that the employment and discrimination issues they faced resulted from laws of general application and did not amount to persecution.
The Federal Court held the RPD's decision was reasonable, concluding that the applicants failed to establish the RPD committed any reviewable errors.
