Adam Wawrzkiewicz

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claims on the basis of insufficient credible evidence to establish their identities.

The RAD concluded that because the applicants provided fraudulent birth certificates, their Nigerian passports could not be relied upon to establish their identity.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because the RAD incorrectly stated that the principal applicant provided no other documents to establish her identity besides her passport, thereby fundamentally misapprehending the evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding a finding that they are not Convention refugees.

The determinative issue was the availability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja.

The applicants argued that agents of persecution could find them there and that the RAD unreasonably relied on a revoked jurisprudential guide.

The Federal Court found the RAD's analysis of the evidence and its use of the analytical framework from the guide to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of China claiming fear of persecution by the Public Security Bureau due to her involvement in the Church of the Almighty God, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal.

The RAD found insufficient evidence to establish she was a genuine practitioner of the faith, noting her superficial religious knowledge.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's assessment was reasonable, as it appropriately weighed her testimony against objective evidence of the Church's tenets and practices.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing his appeal of a negative refugee claim decision.

The applicant claimed a fear of persecution in Iran due to his political activities.

The RAD found the applicant's narrative regarding his political involvement and a raid on his home by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be not credible.

The Federal Court concluded that the RAD's negative credibility inferences were largely reasonable and that the RAD did not err in failing to undertake a separate analysis of the applicant's risk of persecution, as the core facts of his claim had not been established.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's determination that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The applicant claimed to be a Falun Gong practitioner fearing persecution in China.

The RAD rejected the claim based on adverse credibility findings, noting the applicant's inability to articulate fundamental concepts of Falun Gong and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The RAD also rejected his sur place claim, finding that evidence of his activities in Canada did not establish a forward-looking risk of persecution in China.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision, including its credibility assessments and dismissal of the sur place claim, to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing their appeal of a refugee claim refusal.

The determinative issue below was the availability of an internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt.

The applicants submitted new evidence, including a police report indicating that the principal applicant's husband had been tracked down by his mother in another city.

The Court found that the RAD erred in refusing to consider the police report, as it was new and potentially relevant to the mother-in-law's ability to locate the applicants.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicants, Hungarian citizens of Roma ethnicity, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision upholding the rejection of their refugee claims.

The Refugee Protection Division had found that while the applicants faced discrimination, it did not amount to persecution and they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's decision was unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully address the applicants' arguments regarding the cumulative effect of discrimination and the RPD's failure to analyze all areas of alleged discrimination.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming they were not Convention refugees.

The RAD found they were not genuine adherents of The Church of Almighty God and lacked credibility regarding their exit from China.

The RAD relied on an IRB Jurisprudential Guide concerning facial recognition at Beijing airport, which was later revoked as factually inaccurate.

The Federal Court allowed the application, holding that the RAD's reliance on the flawed guide likely fettered its discretion and unreasonably tainted its plausibility findings.