Young v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Young v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review because the RPD reasonably concluded that objective risk was not established: documentary evidence supported availability of state protection in St. Vincent and the applicant did not rebut the presumption of state protection; additionally, the medical treatment claim did not engage s.97(1)(b)(iv) as a basis for protection.

Citation
2008 FC 637
Parties
Applicant: Cecile Young; Respondents: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Refugee Protection Division Decision (immigration/refugee) / Federal Court Decision on Judicial Review (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Judicial Review, Standard of Review Reasonableness, Credibility and Evidence Assessment, Access to Medical Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Judicial Review Standard of Review Reasonableness +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecile Young

Applicant

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Refugee Protection Division Decision (immigration/refugee) / Federal Court Decision on Judicial Review (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the applicant's evidence and credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in concluding state protection was available to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the applicant's claim under s.97 relating to inadequate medical treatment for rheumatoid arthritis

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review because the RPD reasonably concluded that objective risk was not established: documentary evidence supported availability of state protection in St. Vincent and the applicant did not rebut the presumption of state protection; additionally, the medical treatment claim did not engage s.97(1)(b)(iv) as a basis for protection.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • No question of general importance to certify