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 decision refusing an oral hearing on new evidence in a refugee claim based on bisexuality and mental health.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD’s refusal to hold an oral hearing and its identity findings unreasonable in a refugee appeal.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside a RAD decision, and remitted the matter after finding the RAD gave no reasons for refusing an oral hearing.
The appeal is dismissed because the RAD correctly applied the two-part IFA test and made independent findings that Ludhiana is a safe and reasonable IFA: the appellant failed to show, on the balance of probabilities, that local BJP members or police have the ongoing motivation or means to locate him there; the new evidence was not admissible; and therefore removal would not expose him to a risk of torture or persecution.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a RAD decision that rejected a refugee claim for failure to establish identity and refused an oral hearing.
The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings on central elements of the claim (location and adjacency of the Appellant's land to the beer factory, ownership and operation of the factory, and the November and December 2018 detention/abduction incidents) were supported by accumulated inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions; the documents submitted on appeal do not meet s.110(4) IRPA as new evidence; therefore the threshold for an oral hearing under s.110(6) is not met and the RPD's decision that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a pe…
Source excerpt
Cumulative unexplained omissions and material inconsistencies in the Appellant's account (notably omission of the alleged raid/abductions from the original BOC, inconsistent statements about whereabouts and destination of abductees, and omission of reporting to police) justify negative inferences that the raid and abductions did not occur on a balance of probabilities; absent those events the Appellant has not established a personalized risk and the risk is generalized, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden on a balance of probabilities to show that a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai did not exist; the proffered documents did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and were not admitted and the s.110(6) oral hearing test was not met, therefore the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to establish his identity with sufficiently reliable and trustworthy evidence; material indicators (a Kenyan passport used to enter Canada, a Nairobi medical exam using the passport, study permit/travel records, social media evidence, ongoing failure to acknowledge correct arrival details) undermined credibility; the appellant provided inadequate explanation and belated submissions; Rule 37 relief was not justified; therefore the RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the refugee claim under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
Assuming the appellant credible for the purposes of the analysis, the admitted evidence does not establish that his in‑laws or agents of persecution could locate or reach him in the proposed IFAs (Dera Gazi Khan and Hyderabad), and his Shia identity and professional profile do not place him at serious risk in those locales; therefore the RPD correctly concluded the IFAs were reasonable and the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
