Michael Butterfield

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness in the officer's use of Google to locate standard country documentation and held that the officer's assessment of the applicants' establishment, the best interests of the children, and adverse country conditions was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing her appeal.

The RAD had found her not credible regarding central elements of her claim for refugee protection.

The applicant argued the RAD breached procedural fairness by failing to address an internal flight alternative after requesting submissions on it, and that its credibility findings were unreasonable.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the internal flight alternative was irrelevant given the negative credibility findings, and holding that the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his application for permanent resident status under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada class.

The applicant was found inadmissible on security grounds due to his membership in MEK, an organization previously listed as a terrorist organization.

The court held that the immigration officer's decision was reasonable, as the legislation does not require a temporal connection between membership and the acts of terrorism, and humanitarian and compassionate grounds cannot override a section 34 inadmissibility finding.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision dismissing his refugee claim.

The RAD upheld the RPD's finding that the applicant failed to credibly establish his identity and credibility.

The Federal Court held the RAD's credibility and identity findings were reasonable, and that having failed to establish his identity, the RAD was not required to conduct a prospective risk analysis under section 97.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division upholding the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The RPD had found the principal applicant not credible regarding the death of her son and alleged domestic violence.

The RAD refused to accept new evidence submitted on appeal, finding it could have been provided earlier.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision on the new evidence and credibility findings was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.