Michel M.J. Shore

The applicants, citizens of El Salvador, applied for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of their refugee protection claim based on a lack of credibility.

The applicants challenged the RAD's credibility findings and its refusal to admit new evidence on appeal.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that the applicants failed to demonstrate how the credibility findings were perverse or capricious, and failed to meet the strict criteria for admitting new evidence.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Officer's decision denying his permanent residence application due to inadmissibility on security grounds.

The Officer found the applicant inadmissible because he was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, an organization believed to have engaged in subversion by force of a government and terrorism.

The Federal Court held that the Officer reasonably concluded, based on evidence including reports from non-governmental organizations, that the BNP intended to subvert the government and cause serious harm to civilians.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision refusing to reopen her refugee claim.

The claim was declared abandoned for failure to submit Basis of Claim forms and appear at an abandonment hearing.

The Federal Court found that the applicant's counsel had a scheduling conflict and intended to reschedule the hearing, but a clerical error prevented this.

The Court held that the RPD's failure to address this conflict and its resulting denial of the applicant's opportunity to re-establish her claim constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

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