The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD unreasonably failed to address contradictory country evidence about risks to low-level Kurdish HDP supporters.
Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision, finding the credibility analysis and negative inferences about missing corroboration and third-country conduct were reasonable.
The Federal Court found the refugee decision unreasonable, quashed it, and remitted the matter to a different decision-maker because the reasons were not rationally connected to accepted facts.
Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a PRRA refusal, holding the officer reasonably assessed family profile, country conditions, and personalized risk under Vavilov.
The presumption of truthfulness was rebutted because the appellant's BOC contained striking, identical or nearly identical language to multiple unrelated disclosed BOCs without a reasonable explanation; the appellant failed to credibly establish ownership of his narrative or his asserted high-profile political activity, the documentary evidence was insufficiently probative, and therefore he did not establish a well-founded risk of persecution or subsection 97(1) harm—appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a RAD refugee decision, finding the credibility, reavailment, and Romania risk findings were reasonable.