Judicial review allowed; RPD erred in vacating status based on potential country of reference.
The applicants, four Yemeni citizens, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) vacating their refugee protection under section 109(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The RPD found they had withheld material facts about potential ties to Kenya.
The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the RPD's approach fundamentally flawed and based on a logical fallacy.
The Court held that section 109 requires the Minister to demonstrate the original decision was obtained as a result of the withheld information, not merely that the omitted facts could have opened a possible line of inquiry.
The decision was quashed and returned for reconsideration, with a question certified for appeal.
Judicial review granted; RPD's finding that the refugee claim was manifestly unfounded was unreasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision finding his claim for refugee protection to be manifestly unfounded under section 107.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The RPD had determined the claim was clearly fraudulent based on credibility concerns and non-genuine documents.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, holding that the RPD's negative credibility findings were unreasonable because they were based on exaggerated irregularities, misapprehension of evidence, and an unreasonable extension of findings to otherwise unimpugned evidence.
The decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination.
