3 total
Judicial review dismissed; IAD reasonably concluded H&C grounds did not overcome significant residency shortfall.
The applicant sought judicial review of an IAD decision dismissing his appeal against a removal order for failing to meet his residency obligation.
The applicant had been in Canada for only 273 days of the five-year period, having returned to Tunisia for family and medical reasons.
The IAD found his humanitarian and compassionate grounds insufficient to warrant special relief.
The Federal Court held that the IAD's assessment of his initial establishment, delay in returning, and his child's best interests was reasonable.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD credibility findings and rejection of sur place fear evidence held reasonable.
The applicant, a citizen of Djibouti, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his claim for refugee protection.
The RAD affirmed the RPD's negative credibility findings regarding the applicant's alleged political involvement in Djibouti and rejected new evidence aimed at establishing a sur place fear based on political activities in Canada.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that the new evidence was properly rejected under s. 110(4) of the IRPA and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a sur place fear.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found no nexus between incidents and political opinion.
The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
The principal applicant alleged persecution in Angola for refusing to join the ruling MPLA party.
He claimed an interpretation error at the RPD hearing breached procedural fairness and that the RAD unreasonably found no nexus between his political opinion and certain incidents like home break-ins.
The Federal Court found the RAD's conclusion on the interpretation error was reasonable, as the error did not affect the central findings.
The Court also held the RAD's assessment of the lack of nexus between the incidents and the applicant's political opinion was reasonable based on the evidence.
