Camille N. Audain

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of his work permit application to work as a long-haul truck driver in Canada.

The officer refused the application on two grounds: concern that the applicant would not leave Canada due to family ties, and concern about the applicant's ability to perform the work adequately.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision lacked justification, intelligibility, and transparency, as there was no evidence of family ties in Canada, and the officer's rationale regarding evidentiary insufficiency was unintelligible.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicants, two brothers from Pakistan, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claim based on the availability of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Hyderabad.

They alleged they were targeted by a Sunni extremist group and that the RAD erred in its IFA assessment and by failing to assess their sur place claim related to protests in Canada.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably applied the two-prong IFA test and reasonably found that pursuing civilian targets across the country was not part of the extremist group's modus operandi.

The Court also found the RAD's rejection of the sur place claim reasonable, as there was no evidence the protests in Canada were monitored or would lead to harm in Pakistan.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.