Massood Joomratty

The Minister applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision finding the respondents, a mother and daughter from Nigeria, were Convention refugees without a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).

The RAD had allowed the respondents' appeal from the Refugee Protection Division, which had found viable IFAs in Lagos or Ibadan.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was unreasonable because it relied almost exclusively on objective country condition evidence regarding mental health services and difficulties facing single women, without sufficient evidence of the respondents' specific subjective circumstances or inability to relocate to the proposed IFAs.

The RAD unreasonably reversed the onus, which was on the respondents to establish that relocating to the proposed IFAs would be unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision allowing the respondent's appeal and finding her to be a Convention refugee.

The Refugee Protection Division had previously rejected her claim based on credibility concerns arising from omissions in her earlier U.S. asylum claim.

The RAD found her explanations for the omissions reasonable and substituted a positive determination.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's brief reasons were reasonable, justified, and intelligible, demonstrating an independent assessment of the evidence that corrected flawed credibility findings.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.