Canada Case Law

TC2-27332

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appellants failed to discharge their burden to show the proposed internal flight alternatives (Port Harcourt and Abuja) are not viable: there is insufficient evidence that agents of persecution have the means and motivation to locate them in those cities, objective evidence establishes available services and safety in those urban centres, and gender-based protections and Nigerian law against FGM do not render relocation unreasonable; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility assessment
• Female genital mutilation/fgm
• Application of chairperson's gender guideline
• Convention refugee determination

Read case analysis

2023 RLLR 31

Court

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations

On the totality of the evidence the Tribunal accepted the claimants as credible, found they established a well-founded fear of persecution on intersecting grounds of religion and membership in the particular social group of women facing gender-based persecution, found state protection in Mexico would not be adequate or accessible in their circumstances, and found no viable internal flight alternative; therefore they meet the definition of Convention refugees under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee status
• State protection
• Internal flight alternative
• Gender-based asylum
• Religious persecution
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

VC2-02686

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Although the RAD found the RPD erred by not applying the Gender Guideline, that error was not determinative because the RPD's central findings—that the PA's testimony contained unexplained inconsistencies, that evidence about M's means and motivation to locate the appellants was speculative, and that viable, not unduly harsh IFAs existed in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru—are supported on a balance of probabilities; therefore the appellants fail to discharge the burden to show no viable IFA and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility assessment
• Gender guideline application
• Psychological evidence
• Procedural fairness
• Coparcenary property

Read case analysis

Halimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the officer unreasonably failed to assess the applicants’ risk of remaining in Afghanistan separated from their family.

• Dependency definition
• Risk from separation and best interests
• Reasonableness review
• Procedural fairness
• Country conditions
• Remittal

Read case analysis

MB9-26873

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Rwanda; documentary record and new evidence show effective state mechanisms and prosecutions sufficient that protection would have been reasonably forthcoming if sought, therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• State protection
• Domestic violence
• New evidence
• Oral hearing
• Credibility
• Gender guidelines

Read case analysis

Okpanachi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court allowed judicial review, finding the RAD unreasonably failed to meaningfully apply the Gender Guidelines when assessing credibility.

• Credibility assessment
• Gender guidelines
• Judicial review
• Subjective fear
• Prospective risk
• Remittal

Read case analysis

TC1-10937

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the Minister's appeal and affirmed the RPD: the CBSA's initial interview of the unaccompanied minor without an interpreter or child's representative breached procedural fairness so those notes are given no weight; the RPD's credibility findings were reasonable in context and the cellphone contact did not rebut identity or credibility on balance of probabilities; the RPD correctly applied the IFA test and reasonably concluded no viable IFA existed given the claimant's status as a young unaccompanied woman with no family support, severe mental health conditions including very…

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee determination
• Internal flight alternative (ifa)
• Credibility assessment
• Procedural fairness at port of entry
• Vulnerable persons accommodations
• Admission of new evidence under s.110(4)

Read case analysis

2021 RLLR 7

Court

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations

On the evidence the principal claimant, as a bisexual woman who suffered domestic violence, threats, stalking and public dissemination of intimate material in an overtly homophobic society, has a well-founded fear of persecution linked to membership in particular social groups; state protection was inadequate and no viable internal flight alternative exists within the Bahamas; accordingly the claimants qualify as Convention refugees.

Source excerpt

• Sexual orientation
• Bisexuality
• Domestic violence
• Particular social group
• State protection
• Internal flight alternative

Read case analysis

MC0-04425

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD erred by failing to apply Chairperson Guidelines 4 and by misassessing credibility and documentary evidence; assessing the claim on the correct basis as gender-based persecution of an educated woman and member of a women's education association, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution in Chad and the Minor Appellant faces risk by association, therefore they are Convention refugees.

Source excerpt

• Gender-based persecution
• Particular social group
• Credibility assessment
• State protection
• Chairperson guidelines 4

Read case analysis

MB9-03976

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD allowed the appeal in part by admitting late domestic violence evidence (statutory declaration and medical reports) under Guideline 4 and s.100(4) IRPA but concluded the record lacks sufficient credible evidence on the appellant's sexual orientation and related prospective fear; because the RAD cannot hold a sufficiently corrective oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA and cannot properly substitute its own credibility findings, the correct remedy is to remit the claim to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Admissibility of new evidence
• Domestic violence as ground for refugee protection
• Sexual orientation persecution
• Remittal to first instance

Read case analysis