Juan Cabrillana

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting his claim for refugee protection.

The RAD had affirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant was not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions between his immigration forms, written narrative, and testimony regarding his relocation within Colombia and the filing of a police complaint.

The Federal Court found the RAD's analysis to be internally coherent and reasonable, rejecting the applicant's arguments of procedural fairness related to interpretation issues at the port of entry.

The applicants, citizens of El Salvador, sought refugee protection but were rejected on the basis they could acquire Nicaraguan citizenship through the principal applicant's father.

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application for the mother, finding no breach of procedural fairness and agreeing she could obtain citizenship by mere formalities.

However, the Court granted the application for her children, finding the RAD's conclusion that they could benefit from their mother's eventual acquisition of citizenship was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying her request to file additional evidence.

At her refugee claim hearing, she sought to submit a psychologist's report outside the normal time limit.

The RPD member denied the request without hearing arguments or applying the factors under Rule 36.

The Federal Court held the decision was both procedurally unfair and unreasonable, allowing the application for judicial review.