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
La Cour fédérale accueille le contrôle judiciaire, jugeant déraisonnable la décision de la SAR sur la demande d’asile fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle.
The Appellant's core testimony that he is gay and was assaulted leading to flight from Nigeria is credible on the balance of probabilities; same‑sex activity is criminalized in Nigeria, there is inadequate state protection and no viable internal flight alternative, therefore the Appellant is a Convention refugee and the RAD substitutes a decision granting refugee status.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court found no procedural fairness breach, but held the H&C refusal unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully assess the applicants’ evidence and relationship context.
The claimant was found credible and established on a balance of probabilities that she is a lesbian woman with a history of family and community hostility; objective country evidence corroborated a real risk to LGBTQ+ persons in Rwanda and demonstrated inadequate state protection and no viable internal flight alternative; therefore the claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).
Source excerpt
Claimant's identity and credible testimony were established on a balance of probabilities; objective country evidence (criminalization of same‑sex activity, lack of anti‑discrimination protections, documented police abuse) demonstrates a real risk tied to membership in a particular social group; claimant rebutted presumption of state protection and no viable internal flight alternative exists; therefore claimant meets the Convention refugee test and the claim is accepted.
Source excerpt
Federal Court allowed judicial review of a PRRA refusal, finding the officer unreasonably dismissed evidence as biased and relied on pending legal changes in Barbados.
The panel found the claimant credible on his core allegations, established nexus to membership of a particular social group (bisexual/gay man), and concluded that objective country evidence and the claimant's experiences show state protection is inadequate and no internal flight alternative exists; accordingly the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96.
Source excerpt
Claimant's credible testimony and corroborating evidence establish membership in the particular social group of bisexual men, an objectively well‑founded risk of persecution in Kenya given criminalisation and societal hostility, inadequate state protection, and no viable internal flight alternative; 1E exclusion does not apply on the evidence; therefore claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee and is entitled to protection.
Source excerpt
The claimant is a credible member of the 2SLGBTQI+ particular social group; objective country conditions and personal evidence establish a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico; the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant on a balance of probabilities; no reasonable internal flight alternative exists; therefore the claimant is a Convention refugee.
Source excerpt
The claimant's identity and credibility were accepted; objective country evidence shows criminalisation and systemic persecution of LGBTQ+ persons in Tanzania; the government and police do not provide adequate protection and may encourage persecution; there is no reasonable internal flight alternative; therefore the claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee under s.96 of the Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
