Rachel Beaupré

The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, claimed protection in Canada on the basis of her sexual orientation.

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissed her claim, and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed her appeal, finding she was not at risk of persecution and did not face adverse treatment.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing procedural unfairness due to the incompetence of her former representative and challenging the RAD's credibility and country evidence findings.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable probability that the alleged incompetence affected the outcome, and holding that the RAD's credibility and country evidence analyses were reasonable.

The applicant, a citizen of Israel who had obtained refugee status in Canada, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that ceased her refugee protection.

The RPD found she had reavailed herself of Israel's protection by travelling there multiple times and obtaining an Israeli passport.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly assess the applicant's subjective intention, including protective measures she took while in Israel, as required by binding Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence in Galindo Camayo.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal and confirming he is not a Convention refugee.

The RAD found the applicant's claim lacked credibility, particularly his central assertion of membership in a political party, based on inconsistencies between his documents and country condition evidence.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was unreasonable because it selectively relied on unclear objective evidence to ground serious findings of fraud without confronting the applicant.

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness, but allowed the application for judicial review and remitted the matter for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago who had lived in Canada without status for 34 years, sought judicial review of a decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Officer found her establishment was tempered by her prolonged unauthorized stay and failure to prove she paid taxes, and concluded that she had not demonstrated hardship justifying an exemption.

The Federal Court held that the Officer's decision was reasonable, noting that time in Canada alone does not create establishment and that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

The principal applicant claimed he was targeted by a criminal gang due to his volunteer work as a human rights defender.

The RPD found the principal applicant did not meet the profile of a human rights defender, that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption of state protection, and that they had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Barranquilla.

The Federal Court held the RPD's assessment of the principal applicant's risk profile, state protection, and IFA were unreasonable.

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