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 appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant is entitled to French citizenship through her father and has not established a well‑founded fear of persecution or need for protection in France.
Source excerpt
The RAD upheld the RPD finding that the appellant is excluded under Article 1E because objective documentation and law show he can obtain family reunification status in Brazil through his Brazilian child granting rights substantially similar to nationals, his loss of Brazilian status was voluntary, and the discrimination he faced in Brazil does not meet the threshold of persecution, so Canada need not grant protection.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the PA submitted a fraudulent photo and engaged in a fraudulent marriage in the US; combined with material inconsistencies, omissions and evolving testimony on core events these credibility defects are determinative and the supporting documents and psychological report do not overcome the lack of credibility, therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.
Source excerpt
Federal Court set aside an RPD decision on a family’s refugee claim, finding the panel unreasonably discounted gender-based persecution evidence and reliance on prevailing cultural norms.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review, finding the RPD unreasonably assessed internal flight alternative in Kabul by misstating testimony and selectively using country evidence.
The recusal motion failed because the evidence presented (statistics and an affidavit recounting an off‑the‑record remark) was insufficient and unreliable to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias; the claimants were found not credible (fraudulent/contradictory medical note, fabricated newspaper assertions, inconsistent documentary testimony); documentary and country evidence did not demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution of ordinary underground Catholic parishioners in Guangdong; therefore the panel dismissed the recusal motion and rejected the refugee protection claims under…
Source excerpt
The claimant's past discrimination and assaults, though established, do not amount individually or cumulatively to persecution; objective country evidence shows the Slovak Republic is a functioning democracy making efforts to protect Roma and police oversight exists; claimant failed to reasonably pursue available state remedies and therefore did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection — claim under ss.96 and 97 IRPA fails.
Source excerpt
The claimant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment in either St. Vincent and the Grenadines or Trinidad and Tobago; documentary evidence showed societal discrimination but not widespread or systematic persecution or enforcement of criminal provisions against homosexuals sufficient to meet the Convention or protection thresholds, therefore the claim is rejected under ss. 96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The claimant's evidence was not credible and was inconsistent with objective country documentation showing limited enforcement and relative tolerance in Fujian; the claimant was a non‑leader, was not observed or charged, and no arrest warrants exist, so she does not meet the 'serious possibility' standard for a Convention claim nor the balance of probabilities for s.97; therefore the claim is rejected.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court allowed judicial review, finding procedural unfairness where the IRB decided the Armenian aspect of the claim without reconvening or disclosure.
Explore more
