Judicial review of RAD decision denying refugee protection to Sri Lankan applicant dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka and member of the Burgher ethnic minority, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying her refugee protection claim.
She feared persecution as a Christian, Burgher woman living in a majority Muslim and Sinhalese neighbourhood.
The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably assessed her residual profile and the country condition evidence, concluding there was no more than a mere chance of persecution.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed; internal flight alternative finding was reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of their refugee claims based on the availability of an internal flight alternative in Colombia.
The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard.
The Court held that the finding that the applicants failed to establish the agents of persecution would locate them was reasonable.
Judicial review allowed; RAD unreasonably assessed evidence regarding the adequacy of state protection in Albania.
The applicant, a citizen of Albania, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing her appeal.
The applicant claimed she was at risk in Albania due to her ex-fiancé, who had physically abused and threatened her.
The Refugee Protection Division and the RAD found she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the RAD disregarded evidence suggesting there is no effective protection in Albania for women in the applicant's position and failed to reasonably assess her particular circumstances and the reality of the threat.
Judicial review granted where RAD unreasonably rejected new evidence and based credibility findings on implausibility.
The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing his refugee appeal.
The RAD had confirmed the RPD's negative credibility findings regarding the applicant's alleged kidnapping by the Taliban, refused to admit new evidence, and found no forward-looking risk.
The Federal Court held the RAD unreasonably failed to apply the statutory criteria under IRPA s. 110(4) when dismissing new evidence for lack of a date.
The Court also found the RAD's credibility assessment was unreasonable for focusing on physical injuries not central to the claim, drawing impermissible implausibility inferences, and failing to meaningfully engage with psychological and documentary evidence.
The RAD's s. 97 future risk analysis was also flawed because it failed to assess the family's profile as government-affiliated business owners.
