Linda Kassim

The applicants, a mother and her three children, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claim.

The principal applicant, a dual citizen of Eritrea and the Netherlands, fled an abusive ex-husband in the Netherlands but did not seek police protection.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the Netherlands could provide adequate state protection and that it was unreasonable for the principal applicant not to seek it.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably applied the Gender Guideline and reasonably assessed the objective evidence of country conditions, concluding the decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Eritrea, was forcefully conscripted into the Eritrean military where he served until imprisoned for expressing disagreement with a shoot-to-kill policy.

He fled to Canada and claimed refugee protection.

The RPD found him excluded under section 98 of the IRPA for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The RAD upheld this decision.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the RAD's finding on complicity was unreasonable because it failed to intelligibly analyze whether the applicant's contribution was significant, voluntary, and knowing, particularly given the contradictory findings regarding duress and his lack of participation in the shoot-to-kill policy.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicants, reporting to be citizens of Eritrea, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they were not Convention refugees.

The RAD found they had failed to establish their identities and were likely citizens of Sweden who had used genuine Swedish passports to enter Canada.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, concluding the RAD engaged with the evidence, appropriately instructed itself on the risks of photo comparisons, and adequately explained its findings regarding the fraudulent nature of the applicants' documents.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of his removal to the United States pending his application for judicial review of the denial of his request to defer removal.

The applicant argued that he needed to stay in Canada to participate in family law proceedings and maintain his relationship with his children and partner.

The Federal Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish a serious issue, as the officer's decision to refuse the deferral was reasonable.

The Court also found that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for a stay of removal was dismissed.

The applicants, Nigerian nationals whose refugee claim was denied due to a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt, sought a stay of their scheduled removal.

They had applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and requested a deferral of removal, which an enforcement officer denied.

The applicants argued the officer erred in relying on the prior internal flight alternative findings given the revocation of the Nigeria Jurisprudential Guide, and failed to properly consider risk and establishment factors.

The Federal Court found no serious issue with the officer's reasonable exercise of limited discretion, noting a deferral request is not a re-assessment of a refugee claim or a humanitarian and compassionate application.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.