Canada Case Law

TC1-06000

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant failed to prove that the agents of persecution have the means and motivation to locate him in the proposed IFA (XXXX) and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; accordingly the RPD did not err in finding a viable IFA and rejecting the refugee and protection claims under sections 96/97 of the IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• New evidence and rule 29
• Well-founded fear
• Burden of proof
• Convention refugee designation
• Person in need of protection

Read case analysis

Riboul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, upholding the RAD’s finding that the applicant’s Brazilian permanent residence triggered Article 1E exclusion and that the evidence did not show persecution.

• Article 1e exclusion
• Permanent residence status
• Reasonableness review
• Discrimination and persecution
• Asylum shopping
• Procedural admissibility

Read case analysis

MB8-17236

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the appeal because key allegations were not credible (significant omissions and inconsistencies in the BOC Form and testimony regarding landlord threats and relationship with the deceased friend), the documentary record did not establish a serious possibility of persecution in Brazil for the appellants or risk to the minors in the United States or Brazil, and the appellants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E; therefore the RPD determination is confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Persecution and state protection
• Article 1e exclusion (third country permanent residence)
• Risk assessment for return
• Procedural admissibility

Read case analysis

MB5-03498

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities to rebut the presumption that Chilean authorities were willing and able to provide adequate protection, and no admissible evidence on appeal met the threshold under subsection 110(6) IRPA to justify a RAD hearing; therefore the RPD determination denying refugee protection was confirmed.

Source excerpt

• State protection
• Standard of proof
• Subsection 110(6) hearing
• Credibility
• Procedural admissibility

Read case analysis

TB5-06271

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The Respondent failed to establish her identity on the balance of probabilities because the driver's licences were non-genuine or obtained improperly and the Respondent's explanations were not credible; other identity documents were of limited weight given documented prevalence of fraud; therefore the RPD's acceptance of identity was unsustainable and the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a negative determination.

Source excerpt

• Identity verification
• Documentary evidence
• Credibility assessment
• Female genital mutilation (fgm)
• Fraudulent documents
• Procedural admissibility

Read case analysis