Judicial review of inadmissibility finding for complicity in crimes against humanity dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant, a former member of the Indian Army, sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision finding him inadmissible to Canada under section 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity.
The Immigration Division found reasonable grounds to believe the Indian Army committed crimes against humanity during the applicant's service in Jammu and Kashmir, and that he made a voluntary, significant, and knowing contribution to those crimes.
The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting the Immigration Division correctly applied the legal tests for crimes against humanity and complicity, and properly assessed the evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD need not assess state protection when credibility and IFA findings are determinative.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting his refugee protection claim.
The RAD found the applicant was not credible and had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in India.
The applicant argued the RAD erred by not assessing the availability of state protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD is not required to examine state protection when determinative findings on credibility and an IFA have already been made.
The decision was reasonable.
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed; applicant failed to establish counsel incompetence or unreasonable credibility findings.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejecting his refugee claim based on negative credibility findings.
The applicant argued his former counsel was incompetent, resulting in a breach of procedural fairness, and that the credibility findings were unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove incompetence and did not notify his former counsel of the allegations.
The Court also held the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable and adequately justified by the evidence.
Judicial review dismissed as the RAD reasonably found a viable internal flight alternative in Beirut.
The applicants, citizens of Lebanon, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claims based on a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Beirut.
The RAD had accepted new documentary evidence but ultimately concluded that the applicants had not established a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk of harm in the IFA, nor that it would be unreasonable to relocate there.
The Federal Court found the RAD's evaluation of the evidence and its application of the IFA test to be reasonable.
