Avvy Yao-Yao Go

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)'s rejection of her claim for refugee protection.

She alleged that the RPD member's questioning raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and challenged the RAD's credibility findings regarding the genuineness of her Christian faith and her sur place claim.

The Federal Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting the high threshold and the inquisitorial nature of the RPD process.

However, the Court held that the RAD's credibility findings were unreasonable because they improperly imposed a subjective standard of theological knowledge without considering the applicant's background and limited exposure to the faith.

As the dismissal of the sur place claim rested on these erroneous credibility findings, it was also unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, an international student, applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit but was refused because he engaged in part-time studies outside of his final semester.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the officer failed to consider his school-approved authorized leave.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because the officer failed to consider crucial evidence of the authorized leave, which constitutes an exception to the full-time study requirement under the relevant guidelines.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a different officer.

The applicants sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

They claimed a fear of persecution from MS-13 gang members in El Salvador who had extorted them when they owned a business.

The PRRA officer denied the application, relying on the RPD's previous finding that the risk was generalized and that there was no forward-looking risk since the applicants had closed their business and paid the extortion.

The Court found the PRRA officer reasonably deferred to the RPD's credibility findings and reasonably concluded the applicants failed to establish a personalized risk under section 97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA based on new evidence.