3 total
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found applicants had a viable internal flight alternative in Bogotá.
The applicants, citizens of Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that confirmed they had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bogotá.
The applicants argued the RAD imposed too high a burden of proof regarding their risk of persecution and erred in its analysis of their profile as social leaders.
The Federal Court found the RAD applied the correct legal tests and standards of proof, and reasonably concluded the applicants lacked the profile to be at risk from all armed combatants in Colombia.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed; no breach of procedural fairness in not holding a de novo hearing.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing his appeal.
The applicant's initial refugee claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division on credibility grounds, with a finding of no credible basis.
This Court previously found the lack of credible basis finding unreasonable and remitted the matter.
The RPD, without a new hearing, issued a new decision finding a credible basis but maintaining the adverse credibility findings.
The RAD dismissed the applicant's appeal, concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness by the RPD in not holding a new hearing.
The applicant failed to appear at the judicial review hearing.
The Court determined the case on written submissions and dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a breach of procedural fairness.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably refused late evidence and found no prejudice.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and upholding the rejection of their refugee protection claims.
They argued that the RAD failed to account for the incompetence of their initial counsel and consultant, and erred in refusing to admit new evidence.
The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard under the Vavilov framework, held that the applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances or prejudice resulting from alleged incompetence.
The Court also upheld the RAD's refusal to admit new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, finding that the applicants did not adequately explain why the evidence was not reasonably available earlier.
