Gavin MacLean

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal.

The RAD had upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that she was not a Convention refugee, based on negative credibility findings regarding her claimed Falun Gong practice and a sur place claim.

The Federal Court found the RAD's assessment was reasonable and that the RAD did not breach procedural fairness, as the credibility of her evidence was already in issue before the RPD.

The applicants, a Nigerian family, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying their refugee claims.

They alleged risk from a former business partner.

The RAD admitted new evidence but ultimately found it unreliable and declined to hold an oral hearing, upholding the Refugee Protection Division's finding of a viable internal flight alternative.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's treatment of the new evidence unimpeachable, its refusal of an oral hearing within its discretion given the unreliability of the evidence, and its finding on internal flight alternatives reasonable.

The applicants, citizens of China, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their claims for refugee protection.

The claims were based on a fear of persecution for violating China's two-child policy and for converting to Christianity in Canada.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable.

The RAD correctly assessed the forward-looking risk of persecution regarding the family planning policy, concluding the applicants faced at most a social compensation fee, not forced sterilization.

The RAD also reasonably concluded, based on credibility findings, that the applicants' religious conversion was not genuine and was done to bolster their claim.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.