Jocelyne Murphy

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision that allowed the Minister's appeal and issued a deportation order.

The Immigration Division had originally declined to issue the order, finding that res judicata applied based on a prior Federal Court precedent involving similar facts.

The IAD overturned this, explicitly choosing not to apply the Federal Court precedent.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the IAD erred by failing to adhere to the doctrine of vertical stare decisis (binding precedent).

The IAD did not establish that any of the recognized exceptions to following higher court precedent applied.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision dismissing their appeal of a Refugee Protection Division decision that rejected their claim for refugee protection.

The determinative issue was the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably concluded the applicants had a viable IFA and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, whose refugee claim was rejected, failed to appear for removal and went into hiding.

She subsequently filed an H&C application which was also rejected, and she sought judicial review of that decision.

During the judicial review proceedings, she filed an affidavit but refused to appear for cross-examination by the Minister, citing fear of arrest.

The Federal Court struck her affidavit under Rule 97(c) due to her unjustified refusal to be cross-examined.

Furthermore, applying the clean hands doctrine and Rule 97(d), the Court dismissed the application for judicial review without deciding it on the merits, citing the applicant's serious misconduct in evading the removal process and defying the court's rules.

The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, applied for a stay of his removal scheduled for February 21, 2020, pending judicial review of the refusal of his PRRA and a request to postpone the removal.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to raise a serious issue to be tried regarding the underlying decisions.

The Court noted that the PRRA officer reasonably assessed the applicant's evidence and that the enforcement officer reasonably denied the postponement request based on the applicant's mental health issues.

The Court also concluded that the applicant did not establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.