3 total
Judicial review dismissed as the RAD's credibility findings and refusal of new evidence were reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division rejecting his appeal of a refused refugee claim.
The RPD and RAD found the applicant lacked credibility due to issues with his identity documents and his four-year delay in claiming refugee protection.
The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and its refusal to admit new evidence justified under s. 110(4) of the IRPA, as the applicant failed to explain why the evidence could not have been presented earlier.
Motion for stay of removal dismissed; pending sponsorship application was not timely.
The applicant sought a stay of her scheduled removal to Hong Kong, arguing her pending spousal sponsorship application warranted a deferral.
The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding the officer's decision to deny deferral was not unreasonable.
The spousal sponsorship application was not timely as it was submitted after the applicant became removal ready, and short-term deferral requests are not the proper forum for rearguing broader humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
Judicial review granted where RAD substituted a refugee determination on a new ground without notice.
The Minister applied for judicial review of a RAD decision setting aside the RPD's rejection of a refugee claim based on identity, and substituting a determination that the respondents were Convention refugees sur place.
The Federal Court held that the RAD's identity findings were reasonable and that it had jurisdiction to determine the sur place claim.
However, the Court granted the application for judicial review because the RAD breached procedural fairness by deciding the appeal on the new sur place ground without giving the Minister notice and an opportunity to be heard, even though the Minister had not intervened in the RAD appeal.
