Amani Delbani

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting his claim for refugee protection.

The RAD had affirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant was not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions between his immigration forms, written narrative, and testimony regarding his relocation within Colombia and the filing of a police complaint.

The Federal Court found the RAD's analysis to be internally coherent and reasonable, rejecting the applicant's arguments of procedural fairness related to interpretation issues at the port of entry.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed an order made by a prothonotary that directed a status review of her action.

The prothonotary made the order because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to produce and serve copies of her documents, despite several extensions and a clear warning.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the prothonotary's decision was a reasonable exercise of case management discretion and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of his claim for refugee protection based on his political profile in Haiti.

The RAD found the applicant's allegations lacked credibility due to vague and evolving testimony regarding his participation in a radio show and the kidnapping of a friend, which was omitted from his Basis of Claim form and police report.

The Federal Court concluded the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable, noting it was highly unlikely his assailant heard him on the radio and that the spontaneous embellishment of his testimony regarding the kidnapping undermined his credibility.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a mother and two minor children from Egypt, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of their refugee protection claims.

The applicants claimed fear of persecution based on political activities and ties to the Freedom and Justice Party.

The RAD declined to admit new evidence, hold an oral hearing, and concluded the applicants had not established an objectively well-founded fear.

The Federal Court held the RAD provided procedural fairness and its decision on the lack of an objective basis for fear was reasonable, noting the absence of a link between documentary evidence and the applicants' specific circumstances.

The application was dismissed.