2 total
Judicial review allowed; RPD decision improperly influenced by revoked jurisprudential guide and unreasonable document findings.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their claims for refugee protection.
The applicants argued that the RPD's decision was improperly influenced by a now-revoked IRB Jurisprudential Guide regarding China, and that the RPD unreasonably determined that the Public Security Bureau summonses on which they relied were not genuine.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the RPD's decision was improperly influenced by the jurisprudential guide, which fettered the member's discretion, and that the RPD's findings regarding the genuineness of the summonses were unreasonable.
The matter was remitted to the RPD for redetermination.
Judicial review granted where RAD unreasonably excluded medical evidence submitted to explain spelling errors.
The applicant, a citizen of Uganda claiming fear of persecution based on his sexual orientation, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD).
The RAD had refused to admit a new letter from his doctor, concluding it was not "new" evidence under s. 110(4) of the IRPA as the applicant was attempting to correct a deficient record.
The Federal Court held the RAD's approach was unreasonable because the applicant had submitted the new evidence to respond to the RPD's finding that the medical report was fraudulent due to spelling errors.
The Court found the applicant could not reasonably have expected the RPD to reject the report on those grounds.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.
