Philippe Proulx

The applicant, a citizen of Sudan, sought judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) dismissal of his refugee protection claim.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant was not credible due to significant contradictions regarding his detention in Sudan, omissions in his prior US refugee claim, and his voluntary return to Sudan in 2013, which undermined his subjective fear.

The applicant was self-represented and the matter was heard on written submissions.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings and assessment of new evidence regarding sur place activities to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision finding him excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Convention.

The RAD concluded that the applicant had permanent resident status in Brazil at the time of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing, based on his immigration forms indicating he left Brazil in August 2016 rather than his testimony that he left in March 2016.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's decision was reasonable, as the applicant failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of permanent residence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a mother from Haiti and her minor daughter, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting their claim for refugee protection.

The mother claimed refugee protection based on threats from a former colleague whom she reported to their employer.

The RPD found the principal applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the timeline of events and her employment.

The RPD also concluded there was a lack of prospective risk if she returned to Haiti and determined there was no credible basis for the claim.

The Federal Court found the RPD's decisions on credibility, risk, and lack of credible basis to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying him refugee protection on the basis that he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in New Delhi, Mumbai, or Kolkata, India.

The applicant argued the RAD erred in concluding he would not face a risk of persecution in these cities, given the use of tenant registration systems and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS).

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably assessed the documentary evidence and properly concluded that the applicant failed to establish a risk of harm in the proposed cities, as there was no evidence he would appear in the CCTNS or that local police would share information.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.