Evan Liosis

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision granting refugee protection to the respondents.

The RPD had found that the principal respondent, a 24-year veteran of the Indian army, was not excluded from protection for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable under the Vavilov standard.

The RPD conflated the legal tests for individual responsibility and complicity under Ezokola, and its findings on the merits of the refugee claim lacked justification and transparency.

The matter was remitted to a different panel of the RPD for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of India who had lost permanent resident status in Belgium, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The applicant claimed risk of harassment and threats of bribery from police in India.

The RAD determined there was no nexus to a Convention ground under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and found under subsection 97(1) that meeting police demands for money from the family business would not deprive him of fundamental human rights.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness and concluded the RAD's findings were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of their refugee claims based on credibility issues regarding the timeline of their relationship.

The applicants attempted to introduce new evidence before the Federal Court that was not before the RAD.

The Court refused to admit the new evidence, finding it did not meet the recognized exceptions.

The Court also found that the RAD reasonably assessed the documentary evidence and properly considered the gender guidelines, concluding that the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria and their minor son, a citizen of the United States, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claim.

The RAD found they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, away from the wife's Muslim family who opposed her marriage.

The Federal Court found the RAD's application of the IFA test reasonable and determined that the applicants had not established a serious risk of persecution in the IFA.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants' claim was based on fear of reprisals in Haiti stemming from a 1993 incident involving the principal applicant's father.

The RAD found that the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port-au-Prince, noting that the principal applicant's relatives resided there without issue.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's assessment of the IFA, including its consideration of generalized risk and gender-related persecution, was reasonable, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a Syrian citizen residing in Lebanon, applied for permanent residence in Canada under the "Convention refugees abroad" class.

The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the applicant was ineligible.

On judicial review, the Federal Court found that the officer unreasonably analyzed the application under the criteria for the distinct "country of asylum" class in section 147 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, rather than analyzing whether the applicant was a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as required for the applied-for class.

The Court allowed the application for judicial review and remitted the matter for reconsideration.