Édith Savard

The applicants, citizens of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division.

The RAD found that the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi, concluding they failed to demonstrate the Punjab police had the motivation and ability to locate them there.

The Federal Court reviewed the RAD's decision on a reasonableness standard.

Finding that the RAD properly considered the evidence and made reasonable inferences, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of India residing in the UAE, sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of her study permit application to pursue an MBA in Canada.

The officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay, citing concerns with her study plan, employment prospects, and weak ties to India and the UAE.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias due to prior visa refusals by the same office.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's detailed analysis in the GCMS notes reasonable and concluding the applicant provided no objective evidence to support her allegation of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding the rejection of his refugee claim.

He alleged a fear of reprisals in Pakistan for acts committed by his parents 50 years prior.

The RAD found no serious possibility of persecution given the lack of recent threats and the applicant's failure to establish he was being sought by authorities.

The Federal Court concluded the RAD's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision refusing to reopen her refugee claim.

The claim was declared abandoned for failure to submit Basis of Claim forms and appear at an abandonment hearing.

The Federal Court found that the applicant's counsel had a scheduling conflict and intended to reschedule the hearing, but a clerical error prevented this.

The Court held that the RPD's failure to address this conflict and its resulting denial of the applicant's opportunity to re-establish her claim constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's rejection of their claim for refugee protection.

The RAD refused to admit letters from psychologists as new evidence because they were not relevant to the credibility issues and could have been provided earlier.

The Court found the RAD's refusal to admit the new evidence, its confirmation of the negative credibility assessment, and its finding that there was no breach of procedural fairness were reasonable.

The applicant sought a judicial stay of removal to Bolivia pending a judicial review of an enforcement officer's refusal to defer the removal.

The applicant had been subject to a removal order due to criminal convictions, and a previous stay by the Immigration Appeal Division had been canceled.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to raise a serious issue because the enforcement officer's discretion is limited to the timing of the removal, not its validity.