2 total
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed; finding of viable internal flight alternative reasonable.
The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal from a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his refugee claim.
While finding his allegations credible, the RPD concluded he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi or Faridabad.
The RAD upheld this finding.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, concluding the applicant failed to demonstrate that his agents of persecution (a wealthy man and police) had the motivation and capacity to locate him in the proposed IFAs, and that it would not be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate there given his professional experience.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Motion for a stay of removal dismissed.
The applicant sought a judicial stay of a removal order to Guinea scheduled for January 16, 2020, following the refusal of an administrative stay.
The applicant argued that the enforcement officer failed to consider a pending spousal sponsorship application and the best interests of his child born in Canada.
The Federal Court found no serious issue, as the sponsorship application had not received approval in principle, making the stay under section 233 of the IRPR inapplicable.
The Court also found no evidence of irreparable harm, noting that the separation of a child from a parent does not inherently constitute irreparable harm preventing removal.
The motion for a stay was dismissed.
