5 total
Judicial review granted where the Refugee Appeal Division engaged in an overly microscopic credibility analysis.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's determination that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
The RAD based its dismissal on negative credibility findings stemming from inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony and documentary evidence.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the RAD engaged in an overly microscopic credibility analysis.
The inconsistencies relied upon by the RAD pertained to peripheral details that did not undermine the core elements of the applicant's claim.
Judicial review granted; RAD's finding on supporting documents was contradicted by the record, rendering decision unreasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
The RPD and RAD found the applicants were not credible due to their failure to claim refugee status in other safe countries and their delay in claiming in Canada.
The applicants challenged the RAD's treatment of their supporting documents, which the RAD claimed bore no indicators of the date on which they were written.
The Federal Court found this statement was directly contradicted by the record, as the documents bore official stamps and dates.
The Court concluded that the RAD's decision was unreasonable because it was not justified in light of the factual constraints.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.
Judicial review allowed; Officer unreasonably ignored evidence of elderly H&C applicant's poor health.
The applicant, an 89-year-old citizen of Egypt and Australia, sought judicial review of a decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The Officer found the applicant to be "able-bodied" and capable of living independently in Egypt, despite contradictory evidence from family members regarding her poor health, anxiety, and blood pressure problems.
The Federal Court found the Officer's failure to consider or address this contradictory evidence rendered the decision unreasonable, allowing the application for judicial review.
Judicial review granted; officer unreasonably used family class ineligibility to deny H&C relief.
The applicant, an Afghan national living in Pakistan, applied for permanent residence under the family class, requesting an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds because his Canadian sister was ineligible to sponsor him.
A Migration Officer refused the application, citing the applicant's ineligibility under the family class as a factor weighing against granting H&C relief.
The Federal Court found this decision unreasonable because treating the ineligibility that necessitates H&C relief as a reason to deny it fundamentally misunderstands subsection 25(1) of the IRPA.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.
Judicial review allowed due to unreasonable reliance on a non-existent factual omission.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) which dismissed their appeal from a negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
The RAD's decision was based on a negative credibility finding arising from an alleged omission in the applicants' Basis of Claim narrative regarding their attempt to take their expropriation dispute to the People's Court.
However, the People's Court was in fact mentioned in the narrative.
The Court exercised its discretion to consider this factual error, found the RAD's decision unreasonable for relying on it, and set aside the decision.
A question of general importance regarding the discretion to consider issues not raised before the RAD was certified for appeal.
