Caroline Doyon

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal against a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his refugee claim on credibility grounds.

The applicant claimed he feared police due to his brother's alleged affiliation with a Sikh militant group.

The RAD found the applicant's account contained significant contradictions, omissions, and implausibilities.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting that the RAD conducted an independent analysis and its adverse credibility findings were justified by the evidence.

The applicant, an 88-year-old citizen of Algeria, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of her refugee claim.

The applicant alleged fear of persecution due to threats from her former assistant's sister after discovering theft, and lack of adequate care for the elderly in Algeria.

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative credibility findings and determination that the documentary evidence did not support a real possibility of persecution based on age and medical condition.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility assessment and treatment of documentary evidence to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of her refugee claim.

The RPD had rejected her claim finding an internal flight alternative existed.

On appeal, the RAD refused to admit a new statement from her daughter regarding her uncle trying to find her, finding the applicant did not act promptly or explain the delay in filing it under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the RAD's reasons for refusing the evidence were based on a factual error regarding the timeline and lacked transparency and consistency.