3 total
Judicial review granted because the PRRA officer failed to engage with contradictory evidence.
The applicant, a Tamil from Sri Lanka who arrived in Canada on the MV Ocean Lady, sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.
The PRRA officer found the applicant would not be at risk of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.
The Federal Court held the officer did not breach procedural fairness by declining an oral hearing, as no direct negative credibility finding was made against the applicant.
However, the Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to transparently address the applicant's mother's affidavit evidence regarding police inquiries and failed to engage with contradictory country-condition evidence indicating ongoing risks to Tamil men.
The application for judicial review was granted.
Judicial review granted; RAD unreasonably assessed the genuineness of the applicant's religious faith.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)'s rejection of her claim for refugee protection.
She alleged that the RPD member's questioning raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and challenged the RAD's credibility findings regarding the genuineness of her Christian faith and her sur place claim.
The Federal Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting the high threshold and the inquisitorial nature of the RPD process.
However, the Court held that the RAD's credibility findings were unreasonable because they improperly imposed a subjective standard of theological knowledge without considering the applicant's background and limited exposure to the faith.
As the dismissal of the sur place claim rested on these erroneous credibility findings, it was also unreasonable.
Application for judicial review of RAD decision denying refugee protection and refusing oral hearing dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming that he was not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
The RAD had excluded several pieces of newly proposed evidence, concluding the applicant failed to show they were not reasonably available before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
The RAD also declined an oral hearing, concluding the admitted new evidence was insufficient to overcome prior findings of fraudulent identity documents.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision to be reasonable, concluding the RAD had properly applied the statutory test for new evidence and reasonably exercised its discretion to deny an oral hearing based on the scant nature of the newly admitted evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
