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
Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a RAD refugee decision, finding the child applicant had not shown an objective basis for fear of persecution in Iran.
The RPD erred by failing to draw negative credibility inferences for significant abuse allegations omitted from the written narratives and by disregarding documentary and testimonial evidence indicating the spouse would likely assist or relocate, thereby making internal flight alternatives viable; accordingly the RAD allowed the Minister's appeal and substituted a decision that the respondents are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The RAD dismissed the appeal because the objective country evidence and record showed Lagos is a viable internal flight alternative: there is no serious possibility the appellant would be persecuted there, the Kogi State government was not shown to have motivation or history of pursuing victims across state lines to Lagos, mental health treatment is available in urban Lagos and would not render relocation unduly harsh, and COVID-19 economic impacts did not create a differentiated risk for the appellant.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found no error in the RPD's conclusion that Enugu State is a viable Internal Flight Alternative: appellants failed to prove a real risk of persecution in Enugu (no persuasive evidence that M.B. has the means or motivation to locate them or is affiliated with Islamic Jihad), sur place claim based on Twitter was not established, the RPD did not breach procedural fairness in relying on the updated NDP, and the PA's disclosed PTSD did not make relocation to Enugu unreasonable; therefore the RPD decision refusing refugee protection is confirmed under para 11…
Source excerpt
RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD: the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they converted to and practiced the Ahmadiyya faith because they did not produce the objective membership documentation reasonably expected under the NDP; post‑decision documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA or of low probative value and appeared to be completing a deficient record; no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness was shown; RPD reasons were adequate when read holistically.
Source excerpt
The RPD’s decision was correct because the appellant’s personal evidence was vague, general and speculative and did not establish a forward‑facing, individualized risk amounting to a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a s.97 protection risk on a balance of probabilities; one piece of proffered new evidence was admissible but it addressed general country conditions and did not establish a targeted risk to the appellant or his locality, and the request for an oral hearing was properly refused.
Source excerpt
Both affidavits (De Oliveira and Romano) must be included in the Appeal Book because they were part of the Federal Court motion record and are potentially relevant to issues on appeal (Rule 343(2)); the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking to admit the CBC article and CTA Response as new evidence and those items are either hearsay or not decisive or both, so admission of the new evidence is refused; judicial notice of the CTA Response is inappropriate because its contents are disputed and require explanation.
Source excerpt
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.
The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellant's credibility was materially undermined by inconsistencies in his Port of Entry evidence and explanations, the newly tendered family bail documents and letter were not credible and thus excluded, the Appellant's and his father's political activities do not on balance establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment on return, and the sur place evidence does not demonstrate monitoring or risk from activities in Canada.
Source excerpt
The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Alexandria: the evidence did not show the agent of persecution had the demonstrated means, motivation or network to locate them there, the new evidence was either not new or not determinative, and the threshold for finding relocation unduly harsh was not met, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Explore more
