Michael Loebach

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing their appeal and confirming that they are not Convention refugees.

The Principal Applicant claimed protection based on domestic violence in Argentina and argued state protection was unavailable.

The RAD found she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.

The Court concluded the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the failure to seek state protection is a relevant factor, and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing their appeal from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division.

The RPD and RAD found that the applicants, who feared persecution in Nigeria related to threats of female genital mutilation, had a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt.

The RAD had refused to admit several pieces of new evidence submitted by the applicants, citing credibility issues and the fact that some evidence could have been presented earlier.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's credibility findings regarding the new evidence were reasonable and that the RAD was not required to hold an oral hearing.

The Court also found the RAD's rejection of the medical evidence to be reasonable.

Finally, the Court upheld the RAD's IFA determination as reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) that denied his application to reopen his appeal after it was dismissed for lack of perfection.

The applicant argued his delays were due to changing lawyers and psychological issues, asserting a breach of natural justice.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue the appeal and had not established a breach of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.