4 total
Judicial review granted where RPD unreasonably excluded post-hearing evidence on FARC and misapprehended IFA evidence.
The applicants, citizens of Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision finding they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
The applicants claimed fear of FARC dissidents due to unpaid extortion demands.
The RPD found they had an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Cartagena.
The Federal Court held the RPD unreasonably excluded a 2021 news report regarding a FARC revival and failed to reconcile its IFA finding with objective documentary evidence suggesting non-compliance with extortion is viewed as political opposition.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found the refugee claimant had an internal flight alternative.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision concluding he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
He alleged he fled Haiti after being attacked by men wearing political party T-shirts who demanded land title.
The RAD found the applicant had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Cap Haitien or Les Cayes, concluding he had not established the attackers were affiliated with the government or had the motivation and ability to pursue him.
The Federal Court found the RAD's plausibility findings and assessment of the evidence reasonable, noting the applicant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review granted; RAD decision on refugee identity and apprehension of bias was unreasonable.
The applicants, a family claiming to be citizens of Rwanda, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming they were neither refugees nor persons in need of protection.
The RAD found they failed to establish their identity and were not credible, taking issue with discrepancies in their documentation.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable as it failed to properly analyze key evidentiary points, notably the applicants' possession of Rwandan passports and their exclusion from Congolese citizenship.
The Court also held that the RAD erred in its application of the test for reasonable apprehension of bias concerning the conduct of the Refugee Protection Division member.
Inadmissibility for smuggling requires organized transnational crime and material benefit.
Consolidated immigration appeals considered whether inadmissibility for people smuggling under s. 37(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act captures all assistance to undocumented migrants or is limited by organized transnational criminality and material benefit.
The Court held the provision applies only where conduct furthers illegal entry for direct or indirect financial or other material benefit in the context of transnational organized crime.
Humanitarian and mutual aid, including assistance among asylum-seekers in collective flight to safety, does not itself constitute people smuggling under this provision.
The prior inadmissibility determinations were based on an unreasonable statutory interpretation and were remitted for reconsideration on the proper legal test.
