Canada Case Law

TC3-44783

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found a viable internal flight alternative in Mérida on balance of probabilities (no evidence the CJNG had motivation to track the appellants there), the appellants' allegations lacked nexus to Convention grounds and thus were assessed under s.97, new evidence was inadmissible because it predated the RPD and could reasonably have been presented, and the compelling reasons exception did not apply.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility
• Nexus to convention grounds
• Persons in need of protection
• Compelling reasons exception
• Admissibility of new evidence

Read case analysis

Apena v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the RAD reasonably held that a compelling reasons analysis under IRPA s. 108(4) was not triggered.

• Compelling reasons exception
• Past persecution
• S.108(1)(e) and s.108(4) irpa
• Judicial review
• Standard of review
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

Jeanty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD’s reasoning unintelligible and unreasonable for failing to address key evidence about the ex-husband’s whereabouts.

• State protection
• Credibility
• Forward-facing risk
• Domestic violence
• New evidence admission
• Compelling reasons exception

Read case analysis

VC0-03730

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative credibility findings based on material inconsistencies, omissions and lack of corroboration; the Appellant failed to demonstrate a personalized risk of persecution or provide evidence of actual or apprehended bias, therefore the RPD's conclusion that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection was confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility
• Persecution
• Risk assessment
• Bias / apprehension of bias
• Standard of review
• Compelling reasons exception

Read case analysis

MC0-02034

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Applying the correctness standard the RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97(1) risk in the DRC due to the principal appellant's political profile or ethnicity or due to the female appellant's gender; newly admitted evidence was insufficient or inconsistent to alter that conclusion; any procedural fairness shortcoming concerning consideration of compelling reasons was not material to the decision; therefore the RPD determination was confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Internal flight alternative
• Procedural fairness
• New evidence admissibility
• Gender-based persecution
• Political opinion

Read case analysis

Abu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD unreasonably failed to assess a central FGM-related persecution claim and inadequately treated witchcraft evidence.

• Female genital mutilation (fgm)
• Accusations of witchcraft
• Compelling reasons exception
• Internal flight alternative
• Judicial review
• Admissibility of new evidence

Read case analysis

MB9-02352

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found the appellants credible and, applying the correct burdens, concluded on a balance of probabilities that the FARC (including dissidents) retain sufficient ability and a sustained motivation to locate and harm the appellants throughout Colombia (including Cartagena) and that state protection is ineffective; therefore there is no safe internal flight alternative and the appeals are allowed, the RPD decision is set aside and appellants are refugees under section 96 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility
• Persecution
• Burden of proof
• State protection
• Compelling reasons exception

Read case analysis

TB8-32579

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded the appellant did not prove a real risk of persecution nor that Egyptian authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect her; therefore the RPD did not err and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• State protection
• Compelling reasons exception
• Credibility assessment
• Gender-related persecution (guideline 4)
• Country conditions

Read case analysis

MC0-02673

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

RAD accepted new school report cards as corroborative evidence, found no material inconsistencies on events central to the claim (2017-2018 protests, arrest, detention, assault), concluded RPD misapplied credibility inferences and implausibility findings, determined change of government did not remove real risk because Kabila's influence and impunity persist, found state protection and IFA unavailable, and therefore substituted decision that appellants are Convention refugees.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Convention refugee determination
• State protection
• Internal flight alternative
• Changed country conditions
• Compelling reasons exception

Read case analysis

TB9-32456

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeals are dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellants' fear arose from criminal gang vendetta rather than a Convention-ground persecution, no sufficient nexus to a Convention ground was established, the incidents cited did not demonstrate a serious possibility of future persecution, discrimination against persons of Haitian descent did not amount to persecution for these appellants, and the compelling reasons exception was not met.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee definition
• Particular social group
• Nexus to convention grounds
• Risk assessment
• Statelessness
• Ethnic discrimination (haitian)

Read case analysis