3 total
Judicial review granted; RAD decision unreasonable for failing to explain corroborative evidence and religious conversion findings.
The applicant, a Turkish national claiming refugee protection based on persecution for his Alevi faith, applied for judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable.
While the RAD's credibility findings regarding discrepancies in the applicant's testimony were reasonable, it failed to adequately explain how it weighed corroborative evidence from the applicant's family.
Furthermore, the RAD found the applicant was not an Alevi convert without providing any analysis or explanation for this conclusion, which contradicted the Refugee Protection Division's finding.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissing refugee claim based on alleged Christian conversion dismissed.
The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing their refugee appeal based on credibility issues regarding their alleged conversion to Christianity.
The Court found the RAD reasonably concluded the applicants did not convert in Iran due to omissions in the principal applicant's narrative, her inability to describe security measures at her secret home church, and a lack of corroborating evidence from the friends who introduced her to the religion.
The dismissal of the sur place claim was also reasonable as there was no evidence Iranian authorities were aware of the applicants' church attendance in Canada, which was found to be an attempt to bolster their claim.
Judicial review granted where RAD unreasonably assessed applicant's credibility and religious conversion.
The applicant, a citizen of Iran, sought refugee protection based on a fear of persecution due to his conversion to Christianity.
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissed his claim based on credibility findings, including inconsistencies regarding his visa application, delay in claiming, and a finding that his religious conversion was not genuine.
The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the refusal and refused to admit new evidence consisting of Iranian court documents showing the applicant had been convicted and sentenced in absentia for apostasy.
The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings unreasonable, particularly its assessment of the genuineness of the applicant's conversion, his delay in claiming, and his return to Iran from Azerbaijan.
The Court also held the RAD's refusal to admit the new evidence unreasonable, given its potential severe consequences.
The application for judicial review was allowed.
