Judicial review dismissed as the RAD reasonably found insufficient evidence of forward-looking risk from a gang.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
She claimed fear of persecution from her former husband's gang in Jamaica.
The RAD found insufficient evidence of the gang's existence or her husband's involvement, and no forward-looking risk.
The applicant argued the RAD failed to properly apply gender guidelines to explain omissions in her narrative.
The Federal Court held the RAD reasonably assessed the evidence and dismissed the application for judicial review.
Application for judicial review of RPD decision dismissing refugee claim is dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division dismissing his claim for refugee protection based on negative credibility findings and lack of prospective risk.
The applicant argued the RPD drew unreasonable inferences and failed to consider his explanations.
The Federal Court found the RPD's decision reasonable, noting the applicant delayed leaving Mexico and failed to claim asylum in the first safe country.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
H&C refusal unreasonable where officer's fixation on immigration non-compliance overshadowed best interests of the child.
The applicants, citizens of Mexico, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.
The applicants had lived in Canada without status since overstaying their visitor visas in 2006 and had a child born in Canada.
The immigration officer found that it was in the best interests of the child to remain in Canada with his parents, but refused the H&C application on the basis that the applicants' long history of non-compliance with immigration laws was a significant counterweight.
The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable, finding the officer's fixation on the applicants' lack of status clouded their judgment and unreasonably minimized the positive factors, rendering section 25 of the IRPA a hollow exercise.
The application for judicial review was allowed.
Judicial review of RAD decision allowed due to unreasonable credibility assessment based on peripheral issues.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) finding that he was not a Convention refugee.
The applicant feared persecution in Ethiopia due to his anti-government political activism.
The RAD dismissed the appeal based on negative credibility findings relating to the applicant's failure to name all protest organizers, knowledge of his parents' political affiliations, and the implausibility of the police searching his aunt's home but not his father's.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the RAD's credibility assessment was unreasonable as it was based on a microscopic examination of peripheral issues and speculative implausibility findings that did not go to the core of the refugee claim.
Judicial review granted where RPD ignored psychological evidence explaining delay and failed to assess central persecution event.
The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying his claim for protection.
The RPD found the applicant not credible due to a delay in leaving Sri Lanka.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the RPD unreasonably ignored a psychologist's report explaining the delay and failed to assess the central event of the applicant's risk: his kidnapping and beating by Sri Lankan authorities.
Judicial review of RPD decision excluding applicants based on their residency status in Italy dismissed.
The applicants, citizens of Afghanistan, sought judicial review of the RPD decision dismissing their refugee claim under section 98 of the IRPA and Article 1E of the Convention.
The male applicant had subsidiary protection and an EU Residency Permit in Italy, where his son was born.
The female applicant previously held a family residence permit in Italy.
The RPD found that their residency status in Italy, which included a right to return, excluded them from protection.
The Federal Court concluded that the RPD's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.
