Suzon Létourneau

The applicant sought a stay of his removal to Mexico after an enforcement officer denied his request for a deferral.

The applicant argued that his removal would cause irreparable harm to his son, who was experiencing a severe psychological crisis with a risk of suicide.

The Court found that the officer unreasonably minimized the evidence of the son's suicide risk and inappropriately blamed the parents' undocumented status for the children's difficulties.

The motion for a stay was granted pending a decision on the underlying judicial review application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for relief based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The Court found the decision unreasonable on two grounds.

First, the officer failed to properly analyze the best interests of the children by merely noting their basic needs would be met.

Second, the officer improperly downplayed the general conditions in Haiti by requiring the applicants to demonstrate how they would be particularly affected.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of her refugee protection claim based on the existence of an internal flight alternative (IFA).

She claimed fear of individuals trying to retrieve something her ex-boyfriend gave her.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting a lack of evidence to show that the alleged agents of persecution had the interest or ability to find her in the proposed IFAs, or that relocating would be objectively unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision finding him inadmissible and issuing a deportation order based on a US conviction for domestic assault.

The ID found the foreign offence equivalent to assault under the Canadian Criminal Code.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the ID's assessment of the evidence and equivalency reasonable.

The applicant, a citizen of Venezuela, sought a temporary work permit for a legal administrative assistant position.

A visa officer refused the application, finding she had not demonstrated she met employment requirements and that she would not leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to explain how the applicant's prior experience failed to prepare her for the employment and why the employer's offer was insufficient evidence of her qualifications.

The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of his refugee protection claim.

The applicant alleged a fear of persecution due to his political involvement with a rival party.

The RAD upheld the rejection, finding the applicant lacked credibility regarding the alleged threats and his five-month delay in leaving the country.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the RAD's decision was reasonable and well-justified on the evidentiary record.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the rejection of their refugee protection claims based on fear of persecution for political opinion.

The applicants argued the RPD member's comments created a reasonable apprehension of bias and the RAD's credibility assessment was unreasonable.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness and held the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing their appeal and confirming the RPD's finding that they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants argued the RPD breached procedural fairness by allowing the hearing to proceed without legal representation.

The Federal Court found no breach, noting the principal applicant chose not to retain counsel.

The Court also held the RAD's findings on credibility and the applicant's failure to establish vulnerability were reasonable.

The applicant, a Sikh citizen of India from Punjab and member of the Indian National Congress, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of his refugee claim.

The RAD concluded that the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bangalore or Mumbai.

The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard under Vavilov and upheld the RAD's decision.

The Court found the RAD reasonably concluded, based on objective evidence, that the applicant was not at serious risk of persecution in the IFAs and that it would not be unreasonable for him to relocate there.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) refusal to grant her refugee status.

Both tribunals concluded her account lacked credibility due to omissions in her testimony regarding a ransom demand, inconsistencies in her description of captivity conditions, and behavior inconsistent with a genuine fear (returning home after escaping).

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of Haiti who held permanent resident status in Brazil, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming that he was excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention.

The applicant argued that systemic discrimination in Brazil meant he did not enjoy substantially the same rights as Brazilian nationals and that his permanent residence could be revoked.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, concluding that the applicant possessed substantially similar rights as nationals and that general discrimination or isolated incidents did not amount to persecution.

The Court declined to consider the revocability argument as it had not been raised before the administrative decision-makers.

The applicants, citizens of Haiti, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming their exclusion from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention.

The RAD and the RPD determined that the applicants had permanent resident status in Brazil and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in that country.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that the applicants provided only generalized evidence of discrimination against Haitians in Brazil and failed to show they were personally targeted or that the Brazilian state was unable to protect them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought a judicial stay of a removal order to Guinea scheduled for January 16, 2020, following the refusal of an administrative stay.

The applicant argued that the enforcement officer failed to consider a pending spousal sponsorship application and the best interests of his child born in Canada.

The Federal Court found no serious issue, as the sponsorship application had not received approval in principle, making the stay under section 233 of the IRPR inapplicable.

The Court also found no evidence of irreparable harm, noting that the separation of a child from a parent does not inherently constitute irreparable harm preventing removal.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.