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 refusal, finding the adverse credibility analysis reasonable and no separate section 97 analysis was required.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the RAD’s refusal of refugee protection, and sent the matter back for redetermination by a different panel.
The RAD confirmed the RPD's negative credibility findings on material elements of the claim after independent review; those credibility defects were determinative and rebutted the presumption of truthfulness, so the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a) and no section 97 or documentary evidence analysis was required once credibility was rejected.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RPD properly found the appellants not credible: the PA voluntarily re‑availed himself to Sri Lanka on two occasions and delayed leaving after the 2018 incident, and he failed to seek asylum during two significant stays in the United States; these facts undermine any asserted subjective fear, the proffered new evidence was not relevant under s.110(4) IRPA, and the appellants therefore do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection; no separate s.97 analysis was required given identical allegations and the credibility determ…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant's core allegations of being targeted and detained in 2018 are not established on a balance of probabilities due to major credibility defects (contradictory lawyer's letter and evasive testimony) and lack of corroboration; the 2007 abduction, even if true, does not create a current serious possibility of persecution; alleged discrimination as a Tamil male does not amount to persecution; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Despite isolated immaterial errors by the RPD, multiple, material credibility failings—contradictory accounts about relationships, absence of required details, failures to seek corroboration, and unreliable supporting documents—justified the RPD’s negative credibility finding; therefore the appellant failed to prove he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RPD did not err: the Appellant's claim was rejected because, notwithstanding acceptance that he is a practising Shi'a Muslim, identified inconsistencies between testimony and the BOC/BOC amendment, material omissions of central facts (threatening calls, police complaints, 1999 incident details), uncorroborated or conflicting police reports, and unexplained delay in leaving Pakistan fatally undermined the factual basis of the claim; new evidence was irrelevant and admission was refused; therefore the Appellant failed to prove refugee status or need for protection.
Source excerpt
On independent review the RAD found the Appellant's evidence of bisexual orientation credible on a balance of probabilities when considered with his Basis of Claim, sworn affidavits and corroborating email; the RPD had erred by relying on demeanour and failing to give weight to the psychotherapist's clinical impressions and the SOGIE Guideline; state protection and IFA are unavailable in Nigeria; accordingly the Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee and the RAD substituted its own decision granting refugee status.
Source excerpt
The RPD did not err: the record shows the harm arises from a private land dispute where the cousin uses corrupt local police to pressure the Principal Appellant; the harm is removable by a reasonable step (selling the land) and therefore does not meet the threshold for protection under s.97, there is no established nexus to a Convention ground under s.96, and the evidence does not establish a gender-based persecution claim for the female Appellant; accordingly the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision.
Source excerpt
The RAD dismissed the appeal because it found, on a balance of probabilities, that the risk to the appellant was localized to his home area and he failed to prove the agents of persecution had the motivation or means to find him in Lahore or elsewhere in Pakistan; relocation to Lahore was realistic and not unduly harsh given his age, language, work experience and family support, and thus a viable internal flight alternative existed meaning the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Explore more
