Jake Boughs

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision refusing his refugee claim on the basis of adequate state protection in Jordan.

The applicant, a process server, had been targeted by a criminal gang member after serving court documents.

Despite police efforts, the perpetrator remained at large.

The RAD found the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, noting police responses to reported incidents and the applicant's failure to report ongoing threats.

The Federal Court held the RAD reasonably concluded the state protection was operationally adequate and reasonably found no tribal connection to the dispute.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to expedite an application for leave and judicial review of an immigration officer's decision refusing a spousal permanent residence application.

The Associate Judge dismissed the motion, finding that the timing of the leave application is not governed by timelines that can be abridged under Rule 8(1) of the Federal Courts Rules and that, in any event, expediting the matter would unfairly prejudice other litigants waiting in the queue.

The applicants, a Nigerian couple, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming that they had an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Abuja.

The applicants argued the RAD breached procedural fairness by applying the IFA to the male applicant without inviting submissions, and that the IFA finding was unreasonable.

The Federal Court held there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the issue had been raised at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the applicants had treated the RPD's IFA finding as applying to both of them in their RAD appeal.

The Court further held that the RAD's finding that Abuja was a reasonable IFA was reasonable, dismissing the application.