Stephen Jarvis

The applicant, a citizen of China who resided in Canada for more than 10 years, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer failed to provide transparent and justifiable reasons regarding the applicant's establishment in Canada.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming they were not Convention refugees.

The RAD based its dismissal partly on a new adverse credibility finding regarding the principal applicant not being her father's first daughter, an issue not raised by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).

The Federal Court found that the RAD breached procedural fairness by relying on this new, factually distinct credibility concern without giving the applicants notice and an opportunity to respond.

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

The applicants, a mother and minor daughter from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their appeal on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt.

The mother fled to prevent her daughter from undergoing female genital mutilation.

The RAD found the applicants would not be located in Port Harcourt and that relocation was reasonable, even though the mother could not register to practice law there without disclosing her address.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable that the applicant could find other work to support herself and her daughter.

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.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision upholding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) finding that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The central issue was the applicant's identity, as he presented conflicting evidence regarding his name, nationality (Ethiopian vs. Eritrean), and immigration history in Germany.

The RAD affirmed the RPD's negative credibility findings due to numerous inconsistencies.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that failure to establish identity is fatal to a refugee claim and to establishing statelessness.