Leanne Briscoe

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The RAD concluded that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of his conversion to the Shia faith and of alleged threats in Pakistan, and that his delay in claiming protection undermined his credibility.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable and that no breach of procedural fairness occurred, as the RAD's findings arose directly from the evidentiary record on issues contested before the RPD.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions: a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and a negative Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application.

The applicant claimed she would face religious persecution as a Christian if returned to China.

The Officer found no risk of persecution.

The applicant also claimed H&C relief based on establishment in Canada and domestic abuse.

The Officer afforded little weight to the establishment and relied on negative credibility findings from the Immigration Appeal Division.

The Federal Court held that the decisions were reasonable and dismissed the applications.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision refusing their humanitarian and compassionate application.

The principal applicant suffered severe trauma and a psychological assessment indicated a heightened risk of suicide if returned to Costa Rica.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the Officer relied on the availability of healthcare and family support in Costa Rica rather than assessing the hardship of how the applicant's mental health would deteriorate upon removal.

The Officer also failed to address the heightened risk of suicide, failing to justify the decision in relation to the severe consequences for the applicant.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants claimed a fear of persecution from the husband's family, who demanded spiritual cleansing rituals, including female genital mutilation, for the minor applicants.

The RPD and RAD found the applicants were not credible based on minor inconsistencies and a perceived delay in leaving Nigeria.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, concluding that the RAD overzealously applied a microscopic analysis of the evidence and failed to reasonably assess the applicants' explanations for the discrepancies and delays.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claim based on a viable internal flight alternative in Lagos, Nigeria.

The principal applicant claimed a fear of persecution from his extended family and community after refusing to assume the kingship of Ajaba due to religious objections.

The Court found the RAD's assessment of the evidence, including country condition documents, to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.