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 an application for judicial review of a refugee decision, upholding Article 1E exclusion based on Panamanian status and finding no certified question.
Appeal dismissed because appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they no longer held Italian permanent resident status; country documentation predominantly indicates revocation is not automatic, appellants made no effort to obtain official confirmation from Italian authorities, the registry documents lacked sufficient trustworthiness, and unexplained omissions in the initial narrative undermined credibility, supporting the RPD's Article 1E exclusion finding.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellants repeatedly testified they would no longer be at risk if they relinquished the disputed land, they declined to do so for sentimental reasons and therefore failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the risk, there is no evidence the harm is motivated by a protected ground so no nexus to section 96 IRPA, and consequently they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 97; the new affidavit was admitted but did not change the result and no s.110(6) hearing was required.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the affidavit, though admissible, did not alter the fact that on a balance of probabilities La Empresa lacks the means and motivation to find the appellant in Bogota, Bogota constitutes a reasonable and safe internal flight alternative for this appellant, and therefore the RPD correctly concluded he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The appellant was excluded under Article 1E because he held Polish Permanent Resident status at the time of the RPD hearing which prima facie conferred rights substantially similar to nationals; he failed to discharge the burden to prove otherwise, failed to show he faced persecution or lack of effective state protection in Poland, and the accepted post‑hearing medical evidence was not determinative; therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection was correct and is confirmed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding the refusal of protection reasonable and the evidence insufficient.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, upholding Article 1E exclusion for the male applicant and credibility findings against the female applicant.
The appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because, on the balance of probabilities, he retains Italian permanent resident status conferring rights substantially similar to Italian nationals; absence from the EU for over 12 months does not automatically revoke that status, the appellant failed to prove loss or inability to renew, and Italy would provide adequate state protection — therefore the RPD's decision must be confirmed.
Source excerpt
The RPD's decision is correct: the female appellant lawfully held permanent resident status in Brazil and enjoyed substantially the same rights as nationals such that Article 1E excluded her from Convention protection; the evidence did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or s.97 risk for either the female appellant or her minor son in Brazil or Haiti; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Source excerpt
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
Explore more
