4 total
Judicial review dismissed as RAD reasonably found refugee claimant not credible due to material inconsistencies.
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing her appeal of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting her claim for refugee protection on credibility grounds.
The applicant had provided inconsistent narratives regarding threats from her in-laws related to her husband's disappearance and failed to claim asylum during two extended stays in the United States.
The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably concluded the applicant was not credible due to numerous material inconsistencies and omissions in her evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Application for judicial review of refugee claim dismissed; RAD's adverse credibility finding held reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claim based on adverse credibility findings.
The RAD found a contradiction between the principal applicant's description of his injuries and a medical report stating he was unconscious upon hospital admission.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
The Court also rejected the argument that the RAD was required to remit the matter to the Refugee Protection Division, noting the RAD's authority to make its own assessment.
Judicial review granted; RAD decision unreasonable for failing to demonstrate application of IRB Guidelines regarding gender-related persecution.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting her refugee protection claim.
The RPD had found the applicant not credible regarding her allegations of spousal abuse.
The applicant argued the RAD unreasonably exercised its role by failing to apply IRB Chairperson's Guidelines 4 (Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution) and 8 (Vulnerable Persons).
The Federal Court found the RAD's reasons did not demonstrate sufficient engagement with or application of the Guidelines, rendering the decision unreasonable.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Judicial review granted as RAD failed to provide adequate reasons for internal flight alternative.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the refusal of his refugee claim on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative in Abuja, Nigeria.
The Federal Court found that the RAD's reasons lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility, noting the failure to conduct a proper independent assessment or provide appropriate reasons for the internal flight alternative determination.
The application for judicial review was granted.
