Ian G. Mason

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding the RPD's determination that she is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The applicant alleged a fear of persecution based on her Christian religion and domestic violence.

The RAD found her fear was not credible, largely due to a fraudulent summons.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision was reasonable, concluding there was no error in the fraud finding, the risk assessment, or the treatment of the Gender Guidelines and sur place claim.

The applicants, Yan Jiang and Yueshi Xiao, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissing their refugee claim.

The RPD had found that Ms. Jiang was not a Falun Gong practitioner, discounting corroborative photographs and witness statements because the photos were taken in a public place and the witness was not available for cross-examination.

The Federal Court held that the RPD's treatment of the corroborative evidence was unreasonable, as the RPD provided no justified reason for discounting the evidence and imposed evidentiary requirements contrary to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.