Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review in a Senegal FGM and domestic violence claim, holding the RPD reasonably found state protection had not been rebutted.
The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred by failing to properly apply a gender‑sensitive analysis to the IFA second prong; given the appellant's status as an older, single widow deprived of land and support, relocation to Mombasa or Eldoret would be unreasonable and not sustainable, therefore there are no viable IFAs and the appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution and is both a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The RAD admitted credible and relevant new evidence (wanted notice, land seizure decree, ownership certificate, medical and affidavit evidence on FGM and COVID-19 materials), found the principal appellant sufficiently credible on key points of political involvement and being sought by authorities despite some exaggerations, concluded no effective state protection or IFA exists, found the female minor at serious risk of FGM, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own finding that the appellants are Convention refugees and persons in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Despite some credibility concerns and delay in filing, the claimant’s testimony—corroborated by pre‑existing GCMS notes and consistent country evidence of pervasive domestic and family violence in Pakistan—established nexus to the Convention ground (female victims of domestic violence), demonstrated that state protection in Pakistan is inadequate and that relocation within Pakistan is unreasonable, and therefore the claimant has a well‑founded fear of persecution and qualifies as a Convention refugee.
Source excerpt
The RAD found the RPD erred in concluding Mbarara was a viable Internal Flight Alternative because, on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant's husband had both the motivation and means (including family and associates) to locate her there and state protection in the region would be inadequate; accordingly the IFA fails the first prong and the Appellant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The claimants' refugee claims are rejected because the principal claimant's credibility is undermined by inconsistencies, unreasonable conduct, unexplained delay and failure to produce key corroborative documents; moreover, objective country evidence shows Senegal criminalizes FGM and provides state and NGO protection mechanisms such that the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return.
Source excerpt
The claimant is a Convention refugee because she credibly established membership in a particular social group (Kenyan women at risk of gender‑based violence), an objectively supported risk of persecution, the failure of effective state protection, and the lack of a reasonable internal flight alternative given her medical, psychological, economic and social circumstances.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the Appellants lack credibility due to material omissions and inconsistencies in their narratives, submission of a police report that on its face shows signs of fabrication, and conduct (failure to seek asylum in the UK; delays leaving Nigeria) inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution; the RPD's credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.
Source excerpt
On the evidence and applying the Rasaratnam two‑prong IFA test, the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Benin City is unsafe or that relocation there would be unduly harsh; there is no persuasive evidence the husband's/father's family could locate or persecute them in Benin City and objective country documentation does not show a practice of forced FGM against non‑consenting parents; therefore the RAD dismisses the appeals and confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because, on an independent assessment, the appellants were not credible on key facts underpinning their claim (existence of disputed land, alleged poisoning of parents, forced FGM causation, attempted kidnappings and agents searching for them). Although some post‑perfection evidence was admitted, it was not central or sufficiently probative to overturn the credibility findings; the Gender Guidelines were applied meaningfully and their omission from the RPD written reasons was not fatal; therefore the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor…
Source excerpt
Explore more
