2 total
Application for judicial review of RAD decision denying refugee protection to stateless Palestinian dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant, a stateless Palestinian raised in Jordan, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he was not a Convention refugee.
The applicant's Jordanian citizenship had been revoked, and he alleged fear of persecution due to extortion by a purported government employee he had approached to restore his father's citizenship, as well as discrimination in Jordan.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, concluding there was no motivation for the extortionist to pursue the applicant, no nexus to a Convention ground for the citizenship revocation, and that the discrimination faced by stateless Palestinians in Jordan did not amount to persecution.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed as applicants failed to establish incompetent counsel or unreasonable credibility findings.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their claim for refugee protection based on negative credibility findings.
The applicants argued procedural unfairness due to ineffective assistance of counsel, flawed credibility assessment, and improper refusal by the RAD to admit new evidence or hold an oral hearing.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to establish incompetent counsel, that the credibility assessment was reasonable, and that the RAD reasonably refused to admit new evidence that could have been presented earlier.
