2 total
Judicial review granted where RAD failed to properly consider uncontested new evidence corroborating claimant's flight.
The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the refusal of his refugee claim.
The RPD and RAD found the applicant lacked credibility and rejected new evidence.
The Federal Court found the RAD's rejection of new evidence regarding deaths in Nigeria reasonable, as it was available before the RPD decision.
However, the Court granted the application because the RAD failed to adequately consider uncontested new evidence from a church pastor corroborating the applicant's refuge and flight, rendering the credibility finding unreasonable.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD finding of a viable internal flight alternative in Nigeria was reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claim due to a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria.
The applicants claimed fear of female genital mutilation and retribution from the principal applicant's family.
The Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting a lack of evidence that the principal applicant's father could use government connections to locate them upon arrival in the IFA.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
