Application for judicial review dismissed; officer reasonably found applicant ineligible for refugee claim based on prior UK claim.
The applicant sought judicial review of a CBSA officer's decision finding him ineligible for referral to the Refugee Protection Division under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the IRPA.
The officer relied on information shared by the UK under a bilateral agreement, confirming the applicant had made a prior refugee claim there under a different identity.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the provision affords no discretion once a prior claim is confirmed, and that the officer applied the correct standard of proof.
The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant was given an opportunity to provide documentation clarifying his immigration history but failed to do so.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found new evidence inadmissible and viable IFA in Mumbai.
The applicant, an Indian citizen who sought refugee protection based on his participation in farmers' protests, applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision.
The RAD had refused to admit new evidence and upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mumbai.
The Federal Court found the RAD's refusal of the new evidence reasonable as the applicant failed to show it was not reasonably available previously.
The Court also held the refusal to convene an oral hearing was not procedurally unfair and that the RAD reasonably determined the agents of harm lacked motivation to pursue the applicant in Mumbai.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review granted where officer unreasonably interpreted an ECA report silent on exact Canadian equivalency.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her permanent residence application under the Home Child Care Provider Class for failing to meet the educational requirement.
The applicant, a dentist in India, provided an Educational Credential Assessment stating her five years of professional study in dentistry was the first professional degree in dentistry in India.
The immigration officer refused the application finding the credential was not equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable as it failed to adequately consider all evidence provided and unreasonably interpreted the silent equivalency in the ECA report.
