D. Clifford Luyt

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming an RPD decision that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The RAD dismissed the appeal largely due to credibility and plausibility findings.

The Federal Court found the RAD's plausibility findings—that the applicant would have asked his newspaper if it received threats, and that the Taliban would have been deterred from kidnapping the applicant by the presence of witnesses—unreasonable because they were speculative and not supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicants, a family from Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision denying their refugee claims.

They alleged persecution by the ELN due to the principal applicant's refusal to cooperate with them while working as a blood donation coordinator.

The RPD found they were victims of crime without a nexus to a Convention ground and that they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Sincelejo.

The Federal Court found the RPD's determinations on both the lack of nexus and the viable IFA were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their refugee claims.

The RPD had found the applicants' evidence not credible, largely because the principal applicant's father's prior refugee claim had been dismissed for a lack of credible evidence.

The Federal Court found that the RPD unreasonably shouldered the applicant with the burden of explaining the shortcomings in her father's claim and wrongly concluded that her failure to do so undermined her own credibility.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter returned to a differently constituted panel for reconsideration.