3 total
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found discrimination did not amount to persecution.
The applicant, a Haitian citizen with permanent resident status in Brazil, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of his refugee claim under Article 1E of the Convention.
He argued the RAD unreasonably assessed the risk of persecution for Haitians in Brazil.
The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably concluded that the discrimination the applicant alleged did not amount to persecution, as it did not constitute a serious, systematic, and repeated violation of core human rights.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably concluded risk of crime based on perceived wealth was generalized.
The applicant, a citizen of Haiti, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of his refugee claim.
The applicant feared returning to Haiti due to violence motivated by his family's perceived wealth and his status as a member of the diaspora.
The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably concluded the applicant faced a generalized risk, not a personal one, as crime in Haiti affects all segments of society, and dismissed the application.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD's finding of a viable internal flight alternative was reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division rejecting their refugee claims on the basis that they had a viable internal flight alternative in India.
The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting that the applicants failed to establish a serious risk of persecution outside Punjab or that it would be objectively unreasonable to relocate.
