Ferishtah Abdul-Saboor

The applicant, a citizen of Türkiye of Kurdish descent and Alevi faith, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting his asylum claim.

The RPD's rejection was based on negative credibility findings related to an evolving narrative about a missing passport, insufficient evidence of political involvement, and lack of prospective risk regarding mandatory military service.

The Federal Court found the RPD's credibility assessments and treatment of the evidence to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a minor, sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding an RPD determination that he was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

While his mother's claim was accepted, the RPD and RAD found insufficient objective basis for risk to the applicant in Iran.

The Court found the RAD reasonably concluded there was no specific threat to the applicant and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing his appeal from the RPD, which denied his claim for refugee protection on the basis of viable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFAs) in India.

He alleged fear of persecution from cow protection groups, the ruling party, and the police.

The Federal Court found no reviewable error in the RAD's refusal to admit new evidence that was available before the RPD hearing.

The Court also held that the RAD reasonably applied the two-pronged test for IFAs, concluding that the applicant's feared agents of persecution lacked the means and motivation to pursue him in the proposed IFA locations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a father and son from Guatemala, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division Panel decision that dismissed their refugee claims.

The Panel had found their evidence regarding risks from a gang-affiliated individual not credible due to inconsistencies in their testimony and between their testimony and documentary evidence.

The Federal Court found no basis to conclude the Panel's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision that found their refugee claims to be manifestly unfounded due to the submission of fraudulent documents.

The Federal Court held that the RPD's findings regarding the fraudulent nature of the documents and the resulting lack of credibility were reasonable and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.