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 allowed judicial review, finding the RAD unreasonably handled identity evidence and remitting the refugee appeal to another RAD member.
On independent review the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a decision finding the appellant is a Convention refugee based on a sur place/perceived political opinion; the RAD held that while the appellant committed identity fraud by using another person's passport and green card, the offence does not meet the Article 1F(b) "serious" threshold when weighing elements, mode of prosecution, likely sentencing range and mitigating factors (non‑violent, private motive, minimal societal harm), and that the accepted new evidence did not change exclusion analysis to warrant exclusion.
Source excerpt
Federal Court dismissed an immigration judicial review, holding the RAD reasonably refused new evidence, declined an oral hearing, and upheld adverse credibility findings.
The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants are not Convention refugees (no nexus to Convention grounds) and are not persons in need of protection because viable and reasonable IFAs exist in Campeche and Merida; the proposed new evidence failed s.110(4) and Singh/Raza admissibility tests and an oral hearing was not warranted; appeals dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RAD found the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings (passport copy, alleged re-availment, and POE omissions), admitted and relied on new and corroborative evidence, accepted the appellant's explanations and corroboration, concluded he has a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of imputed political opinion as a Tamil male, that there is no adequate state protection or viable IFA, and therefore allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RAD allowed the appeal for the principal appellant and the minor appellants because the proposed IFAs in New Delhi, Chandigarh and Kochi were unreasonable given the principal appellant's intersectional circumstances (female single parent, convert to Islam, lack of familial support, young children and associated undue hardship), such that internal relocation was not a viable alternative and they qualify as Convention refugees; the RAD confirmed the RPD decision for the associate appellant because evidence did not show current targeted persecution of Muhajirs or that IFAs in Islamabad or Hy…
Source excerpt
The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellant's foundational claim elements were not proven on a balance of probabilities because adverse credibility findings were justified, the majority of proposed new evidence was inadmissible or not probative, and the sur place/genuineness claim was unestablished; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the appellant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA because the panel accepted the appellant's credible testimony and admissible UNHCR evidence establishing minority clan membership and a well-founded fear of persecution in Somalia, and therefore no assessment under s.97 was required.
Source excerpt
Lebanon is the correct country of reference because the Appellant has Lebanese citizenship; the Appellant did not make a claim against Lebanon and has failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, a s.97 risk if returned to Lebanon; admitted new evidence does not alter that conclusion; therefore the RPD decision that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is upheld.
Source excerpt
On independent review the RAD found the RPD correctly concluded the claimant was not credible and that either proposed IFA would, on the balance of probabilities, be safe and reasonable; the post‑decision evidence was admissible but insufficient to establish ongoing motivation or capacity of persecutors to locate the claimant and therefore did not overturn the RPD's adverse credibility finding or IFA conclusion.
Source excerpt
Explore more
