Mehran Youssefi

The applicants, citizens of Iran, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).

The RPD had found they were not Convention refugees due to credibility concerns regarding the principal applicant's claim of persecution at work.

On appeal, the applicants attempted to introduce new evidence regarding the female applicants' opposition to wearing the hijab and alleged incompetent counsel at the RPD.

The RAD rejected the new evidence as it could have been raised earlier and denied an oral hearing.

The Federal Court found the RAD's treatment of the new evidence and credibility findings reasonable, and that no breach of procedural fairness occurred.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refusing to reinstate their refugee claims.

The applicants had withdrawn their claims following severe mental anguish caused by a miscarriage, but applied for reinstatement weeks later supported by a psychotherapist's report indicating their decision-making was impaired.

The Federal Court found the RPD's decision unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully address the psychological evidence and holistic circumstances under the "interests of justice" analysis.

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