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.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
