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 an application for judicial review of an RPD decision, finding the credibility-based denial of protection reasonable.
On the balance of probabilities the claimant established a personalized risk to his life from an organized criminal group due to his work in exposing fraud; state protection was unavailable or ineffective and internal relocation to Bogotá was objectively unreasonable given pervasive criminal reach, lack of support networks and claimant vulnerability; therefore he is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The tribunal found that the principal and associate claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their political opinion and imputed political opinion as Khalistan supporters based on credible evidence of past arrests, detention and torture by Punjab police, corroborative documentary evidence of the principal claimant's public support for Khalistan, objective country information showing state interest in Khalistan supporters in Punjab, a rebutted presumption of state protection, and the absence of a viable internal flight alternative; therefore the adults are Convention r…
Source excerpt
La Cour fédérale rejette le contrôle judiciaire d’une décision de la SPR refusant le statut de réfugiée et la protection à une citoyenne colombienne victime de violence conjugale.
The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found Mumbai a viable internal flight alternative: the agents of persecution were local police limited to the Appellant's former community and lacked the means and motivation to pursue him nationally, there were no formal charges or records placing him in national databases, and relocation to Mumbai is reasonable on the evidence; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Although the Appellant's testimony is accepted as credible for assessment, the totality of the evidence does not establish on a balance of probabilities that he faces persecution or a s.97 risk: there is no evidence the Chinese state ever pursued him, his parents have been deceased for many years, and country evidence shows inconsistent targeting of family members; therefore the RPD correctly found no forward-looking risk and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review by stateless Palestinians from the UAE, upholding the Refugee Protection Division’s findings on subjective fear, credibility, and lack of persecution.
The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant conceded no nexus to a Convention ground under s.96, the alleged 2019 ransom incidents lack credibility based on the wife's omission and the family's failure to relocate, and Abuja is a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative; accordingly the RPD's findings are confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).
Source excerpt
The RAD properly admitted and heard the Minister's new evidence under s.110(6) IRPA; the respondent conceded Swedish citizenship and produced a valid Swedish passport; on the total evidence (country conditions, the respondent's experiences and personal circumstances) discrimination in Sweden did not rise to persecution or a s.97 risk on the balance of probabilities, therefore the RPD decision is set aside and substituted: the respondent is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet the balance of probabilities that the Black Eagles had the capacity or desire to persecute them and the principal appellant's testimony was undermined by material omissions, inconsistencies, failure to report threats or produce documents, and irrational conduct (returning to Colombia and not seeking asylum in the USA); the post‑decision articles were not admitted as new evidence and did not raise a central credibility issue warranting a hearing, therefore the appellants failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution under…
Source excerpt
Explore more
