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 of a RAD refugee decision, finding the internal flight alternative in Mérida reasonable and no reviewable error.
The RPD was correct to find no nexus to a Convention ground and, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant failed to prove that the agent of harm has the means or motivation to find him in Tyre or that Hezbollah is involved; moreover the IFA in Tyre is not objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RPD correctly found that the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that the robberies and attempted kidnappings were connected or motivated by the family's patriarch such that they would face a personal prospective risk under section 97 of the IRPA; the incidents are consistent with generalized criminality in Algeria and the evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to prove targeted persecution.
Source excerpt
Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision rejecting a family’s s.97 IRPA claim from Lesotho, finding the risk was reasonably treated as generalized.
The appeal is dismissed because even assuming the appellant's allegations true, he failed to establish an ongoing or prospective personalized risk tied to a Convention ground; the evidence shows no contact with perpetrators for over three years, no identification of perpetrators in the police report, and no evidence the cartel continues to pursue him or his family, therefore the RPD correctly concluded he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate a nexus to a Convention ground or that they face a risk whose nature or severity is different from the general risk faced by a significant portion of the Lebanese population; evidence of deteriorated health services and corruption was insufficient to rebut exceptions in s.97(1) or to meet the claimant's burden under section 96 of the IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant did not face a risk that was personal and distinct from the generalized extortion risk in Colombia; she was not directly targeted or contacted and the risk is the same as that faced generally, so she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b).
Source excerpt
The RPD was correct: the appellant failed to prove a prospective, personalized risk related to the incident; the assault was opportunistic and generalized, there was no evidence the Cartel showed ongoing interest in pursuing him, and no nexus to a Convention ground was established, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RAD allowed the appeal because, on independent review, the appellant was found credible on central elements, established nexus to imputed political opinion by members of the Awami League/AJL, and demonstrated absence of effective state protection and lack of a viable internal flight alternative; accordingly the RPD decision was set aside and substituted with a determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee.
Source excerpt
The RPD erred by treating extortion as dispositive of generalized risk and conflating the basis for targeting with the nature and degree of the risk; applying the Portillo framework, the appellant was personally and repeatedly targeted with escalating death threats such that he faces a proximate risk to life not faced generally in El Salvador, and he lacks state protection or a viable IFA, therefore he is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b).
Source excerpt
Explore more
