2 total
Judicial review granted due to RAD's unreasonable assessment of medical evidence and circular reasoning on new evidence.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of his refugee claim on credibility grounds.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the RAD erred by unreasonably assessing medical evidence regarding the applicant's cognitive limitations and by improperly refusing to admit new evidence on the basis of circular reasoning.
Judicial review granted where RAD unreasonably relied on POE form omissions and arbitrary knowledge expectations.
The applicant, a citizen of Georgia, applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he was not a Convention refugee.
The RAD based its decision largely on credibility findings related to omissions in the applicant's Schedule A form and his knowledge of the United National Movement (UNM) party.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD's credibility assessment unreasonable for failing to properly consider the applicant's attempts to correct the Schedule A form via affidavit, for placing undue reliance on Port of Entry (POE) form omissions, and for making arbitrary assumptions about what an active UNM supporter should know.
The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
