2 total
Application for judicial review dismissed as RAD's credibility findings and rejection of documents were reasonable.
The applicants, citizens of China, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their refugee claims based on credibility.
The applicants claimed they feared persecution in China as practitioners of Falun Gong.
The RAD found their supporting documents, including a police summons and a medical booklet, to be fraudulent or unreliable.
The RAD also concluded that their practice of Falun Gong in Canada was not genuine but done to advance a fraudulent refugee claim.
The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility determinations and assessment of the evidence to be reasonable under the Vavilov standard and dismissed the application.
Judicial review allowed; RAD state protection analysis unreasonably ignored objective evidence.
The applicant, a Roma citizen of Hungary, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of his refugee claim.
The Court found the RAD reasonably excluded new evidence from the applicant's sister and reasonably assessed the past discrimination.
However, the Court held the RAD's state protection analysis was unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully address contradictory objective evidence regarding the erosion of the rule of law in Hungary and merely adopted a flawed prior analysis.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a different RAD member.
