5 total
Judicial review granted where RAD failed to consider updated country evidence contradicting IFA findings.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision refusing his claim on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Barranquilla.
The applicant argued the RAD failed to consider the updated National Documentation Package (NDP) which indicated the threatening groups had a presence in Barranquilla.
The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the RAD's failure to consider critical contradictory country documents regarding the presence and influence of the agents of persecution rendered the decision unreasonable.
Judicial review granted; RAD unreasonably speculated about future behaviour of agents of persecution.
The applicant, a citizen of Egypt, sought refugee protection based on his fear of persecution due to his ex-wife's status as a high-profile political activist.
The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) accepted his core allegations as credible but dismissed his appeal, finding he lacked a forward-facing risk because he was divorced and his son lived in Sweden.
The Federal Court held that the RAD's finding rested solely on unsupported speculation about how the Egyptian authorities would behave and behave rationally.
The application for judicial review was granted.
Judicial review granted; RPD's assessment of state protection and IFA for human rights defender was unreasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
The principal applicant claimed he was targeted by a criminal gang due to his volunteer work as a human rights defender.
The RPD found the principal applicant did not meet the profile of a human rights defender, that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption of state protection, and that they had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Barranquilla.
The Federal Court held the RPD's assessment of the principal applicant's risk profile, state protection, and IFA were unreasonable.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Judicial review granted where RPD breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed port of entry statement and failing to put credibility concerns to applicant.
The applicant, a deaf citizen of El Salvador, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying his claim for refugee protection.
The RPD found him not credible, relying in part on a typed statement seized at the port of entry that was not disclosed to the applicant prior to the hearing, and drew adverse credibility findings without giving him an opportunity to respond.
The Federal Court held that confronting the applicant with the undisclosed statement and drawing adverse credibility inferences without putting the concerns to him breached procedural fairness.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration by a different member.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found applicant failed to rebut presumption of state protection.
The applicant, a citizen of Venezuela and daughter of a prominent politician, sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding the RPD's denial of her refugee claim.
The RAD found she had not rebutted the presumption of state protection.
The applicant argued procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.
The Court found the RAD made insufficiency findings, not novel credibility findings, and reasonably assessed the operational adequacy of state protection.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
