Avvy Yao-Yao Go

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's finding that they are not Convention refugees and had a viable internal flight alternative in Bogotá.

The applicants had received death threats related to a land restitution claim in Colombia.

The RAD refused to admit new country condition evidence regarding the presence of the Black Eagles paramilitary group in Bogotá, and concluded it was reasonable for the applicants to abandon their land claim.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the RAD erred by refusing to admit the new evidence under the Raza test and acted unreasonably in suggesting the applicants should abandon their land claim to live safely.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) dismissing his complaint against an Alberta Provincial Court judge and three Alberta Court of Appeal judges.

The applicant alleged the judges were biased and made legal errors regarding his criminal convictions, which led to his deportation.

The CJC dismissed the complaint on the basis that it related to judicial decision-making, not judicial conduct.

The Federal Court held that the CJC's decision was reasonable, as the applicant's complaints were essentially disagreements with the judges' rulings, which fall outside the CJC's mandate to review judicial conduct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, a citizen of Honduras with a criminal record in Canada, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

He argued the officer erred in assessing his establishment, the best interests of his Canadian-born children, and the adverse country conditions in Honduras.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable, noting the officer failed to meaningfully consider the emotional interdependence of the applicant and his spouse, inadequately assessed the best interests of his two young Canadian-born sons for whom he provides primary care, and unreasonably dismissed evidence of severe gang violence in Honduras.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicants, non-resident taxpayers, filed their 2018 non-resident income tax returns nine days late and requested an extension of time under subsection 220(3) of the Income Tax Act, citing delays caused by a CRA error in allocating their tax remittances.

A delegate of the Minister of National Revenue denied the extension request in a brief four-paragraph letter.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because it failed to provide sufficient reasons and failed to respond to the applicants' submissions regarding the CRA error, the subsequent delay in remediating the problem, and financial hardship.

The application for judicial review was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal from a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting her claim for protection.

The RAD found the applicant lacked credibility due to material omissions and inconsistencies between her port of entry interviews and her refugee claim narrative, particularly her failure to initially mention her Falun Gong practice.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable, noting that the Falun Gong issue was a crucial element of the claim omitted at the port of entry.

The Court also held the RAD's conclusions regarding the applicant's exit from China and evidence of her Falun Gong practice were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing his refugee appeal.

He argued the RAD breached procedural fairness by making new credibility findings about his documentary evidence without notice.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, noting that the Applicant himself had asked the RAD to assess the documents, meaning the findings were not new issues.

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia and youth rugby coach, sought refugee protection based on threats from an armed group, Los Rastrojos, who wanted him to recruit for them.

The RPD rejected the claim, finding no nexus to a Convention ground under section 96 and that he had a viable internal flight alternative in Tunja under section 97.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision reasonable regarding both the lack of political nexus and the viability of the internal flight alternative.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)'s rejection of her claim for refugee protection.

She alleged that the RPD member's questioning raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and challenged the RAD's credibility findings regarding the genuineness of her Christian faith and her sur place claim.

The Federal Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting the high threshold and the inquisitorial nature of the RPD process.

However, the Court held that the RAD's credibility findings were unreasonable because they improperly imposed a subjective standard of theological knowledge without considering the applicant's background and limited exposure to the faith.

As the dismissal of the sur place claim rested on these erroneous credibility findings, it was also unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, an international student, applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit but was refused because he engaged in part-time studies outside of his final semester.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the officer failed to consider his school-approved authorized leave.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because the officer failed to consider crucial evidence of the authorized leave, which constitutes an exception to the full-time study requirement under the relevant guidelines.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a different officer.

The applicants sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

They claimed a fear of persecution from MS-13 gang members in El Salvador who had extorted them when they owned a business.

The PRRA officer denied the application, relying on the RPD's previous finding that the risk was generalized and that there was no forward-looking risk since the applicants had closed their business and paid the extortion.

The Court found the PRRA officer reasonably deferred to the RPD's credibility findings and reasonably concluded the applicants failed to establish a personalized risk under section 97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA based on new evidence.