Canada Case Law

VB8-06768

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

On the evidence including US charging documents and witness testimony, there were serious reasons for considering the Principal Appellant committed serious non-political crimes (violent assault, attempted murder, use/pointing of firearms) in the USA before entering Canada, warranting exclusion under Article 1F(b)/section 98 IRPA; the Associate Appellants failed to establish persecution on protected grounds or that La Linea had the capacity or motivation to track and harm them throughout Mexico, so the RPD decision denying refugee protection and need for protection is confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Article 1f(b) exclusion
• Section 98 irpa
• Convention refugee status (section 96 irpa)
• Person in need of protection (section 97 irpa)
• Section 111(1)(a) irpa
• Admissibility of new evidence (section 110 irpa)

Read case analysis

VA9-05520

Court

Refugee Protection Division

Although claimants were credible, their feared harms were criminal acts without demonstrated nexus to a Convention ground and the evidence failed to show on the balance of probabilities that they would face torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return; moreover a reasonable internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) exists, so protection and refugee status are not warranted.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee determination
• Person in need of protection
• Internal flight alternative
• Persecution by non-state actors
• Nexus to convention grounds
• Torture and risk to life

Read case analysis

White v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court quashed the refusal of humanitarian and compassionate relief, finding the officer unreasonably ignored the applicant’s traumatic brain injury and family circumstances.

• Humanitarian and compassionate (h&c) relief
• Pre-removal risk assessment (prra)
• Judicial review
• Standard of review - reasonableness
• Discretionary decision-making
• Disability and accommodation

Read case analysis