The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing their appeal and confirming they were not Convention refugees.
They alleged the RAD breached procedural fairness and made unreasonable credibility findings regarding their conversion to Christianity.
The Federal Court found the RAD did not err in refusing new evidence or breach procedural fairness.
However, the Court held the RAD unreasonably misconstrued the applicants' testimony regarding baptism and house church procedures, and failed to adequately assess corroborative evidence from a pastor.
The application for judicial review was granted.
