2 total
Judicial review granted; RAD decision unreasonable for failing to demonstrate application of IRB Guidelines regarding gender-related persecution.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting her refugee protection claim.
The RPD had found the applicant not credible regarding her allegations of spousal abuse.
The applicant argued the RAD unreasonably exercised its role by failing to apply IRB Chairperson's Guidelines 4 (Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution) and 8 (Vulnerable Persons).
The Federal Court found the RAD's reasons did not demonstrate sufficient engagement with or application of the Guidelines, rendering the decision unreasonable.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Judicial review granted as RAD failed to provide adequate reasons for internal flight alternative.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the refusal of his refugee claim on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative in Abuja, Nigeria.
The Federal Court found that the RAD's reasons lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility, noting the failure to conduct a proper independent assessment or provide appropriate reasons for the internal flight alternative determination.
The application for judicial review was granted.
