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
Contrôle judiciaire d’un rejet de demande d’asile d’un citoyen salvadorien fondée sur les activités syndicales de son père. La Cour fédérale juge la décision raisonnable et rejette la demande.
Contrôle judiciaire en matière d’asile rejeté: la Cour fédérale conclut que la SAR pouvait raisonnablement estimer non établi le risque prospectif de persécution fondé sur le lien familial.
The Federal Court dismissed an immigration judicial review, finding the RAD reasonably held there was insufficient evidence that the applicants faced a forward-looking risk in Chile.
The RPD did not err: material contradictions in the documentary record rebutted the appellant's credibility on key facts about his parents; the new evidence on appeal was both available earlier and insufficiently credible; consequently the appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution either by virtue of family relationship or expatriation, and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court allowed judicial review because the RAD failed to address whether the child applicant faced persecution as a family member of the primary target.
The RPD's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the appellant did not establish a well‑founded fear were reasonable: the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain a significant delay in claiming protection, similarly situated family members were not shown to have been targeted, the father's testimony contained multiple material inconsistencies, and no new evidence was presented to the RAD; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RPD erred in its assessment of the first prong of the IFA test by failing to account for evidence that the Principal Appellant's family had state connections and sufficient means and motivation to locate and harm the Appellants; on an independent review the Appellants' evidence is credible on a balance of probabilities, there is a nexus to Convention grounds (religion and membership in a particular social group), state protection is unavailable, no viable IFA exists, and therefore the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Source excerpt
Most new documentary evidence on appeal was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA except two medical/psychological reports which were credible and relevant; the male appellant is excluded from protection because his South African permanent resident status gives him the rights and obligations of nationality (Article 1E / s.98); the record does not establish a serious possibility of persecution of the female appellant and her children on account of family political activity or tie to the male appellant, nor on balance of probabilities a personal risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment; a…
Source excerpt
The RAD allowed the appeal, finding the RPD erred in requiring specific threats to the children and in considering the outcome of a Canadian permanent residency application; on independent review, the RAD concluded the minor appellants are Convention refugees because they face persecution in Egypt as members of the immediate family of persons persecuted for political opinion, supported by country documentation showing family members, including children, are targeted.
Source excerpt
RAD confirmed RPD because admissible new articles were not central and did not alter outcome; credible documentary evidence established that appellant's father held official responsibilities in the transitional government and was not a target, and there was no evidence of intent to mistreat the appellant by her in-laws or realistic loss of custody; therefore no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/serious harm if returned and no hearing warranted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
