Jonathan Gruszczynski

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's determination that they were not Convention refugees due to viable internal flight alternatives in Mumbai and New Delhi.

The applicants alleged fear of persecution by a corrupt politician in Punjab.

On judicial review, they argued the RAD unreasonably refused to admit a news article published after their RPD hearing as new evidence, and that the RAD selectively assessed country condition documents.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD correctly applied the statutory conditions in s. 110(4) of the IRPA by concluding the article did not arise after the rejection of their claim and was reasonably available.

The Court also held the RAD's assessment of the country conditions was reasonable and supported the finding that the politician would not be motivated to pursue the applicants across India.

The applicant, a citizen of Haiti who had obtained permanent resident status in Brazil, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upholding the rejection of his refugee claim.

The claim was excluded under section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because he had permanent residence in Brazil and failed to establish a risk of persecution there.

The applicant argued the RAD failed to properly analyze the cumulative impact of discrimination he experienced in Brazil.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision reasonably concluded that the incidents of discrimination, individually and cumulatively, did not amount to persecution.