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 refugee decision, finding no reviewable error in the risk analysis or any procedural fairness breach.
The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings are upheld: the unexplained delay in seeking protection and inconsistent testimony (including Schedule 12 discrepancies) together with the absence of reasonable corroboration demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant did not practise Falun Gong in China, is not genuinely a practitioner in Canada and would not face a serious possibility of persecution if returned to China; a minor error about expected depth of Falun Gong knowledge was not determinative.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because material omissions and inconsistencies—principally the failure to disclose the Principal Appellant's husband's travel to Canada and the United States during the period the family alleged they were hiding—undermined the credibility of the basis of the claim; corroborating evidence was lacking; and the objective country evidence did not establish that being Shia placed the Appellants at a serious risk of persecution. Therefore the RPD's finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was correct.
Source excerpt
The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found the Appellant not credible on the central issues (in‑authentic ODM membership card and reliance on fraudulent documents), the Appellant unreasonably delayed seeking asylum and re‑availed to Kenya thereby undermining subjective fear, and the objective country evidence did not establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a RAD refugee decision, finding the RAD unreasonably treated the applicants’ U.S. asylum delay as decisive without adequate explanation.
The RPD's adverse credibility finding is upheld because the Appellants submitted non-genuine ELN threat letters and gave inconsistent, implausible explanations (including unexplained delay in claiming asylum); the remaining documentary evidence does not corroborate a personalized risk; therefore the claim fails and no separate s.97 analysis could salvage it.
Source excerpt
The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's credibility was decisively undermined by material contradictions about his paternity and birth certificate, inconsistency between his written and oral accounts of abuse and social marginalization, and his prolonged residence in the United States without seeking asylum; on that basis the appellant failed to prove he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96–97 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RPD reasonably concluded that the appellant's admitted misrepresentations and unsatisfactory explanations undermined his entire account, that his failure to seek asylum in the United States and the delay in seeking protection in Canada were inconsistent with a genuine fear, and that there was no independent credible evidence to rebut the general finding of lack of credibility; therefore the appellant is not a refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RPD erred by failing to consider objective country conditions and the Civil War Guideline and by making adverse credibility findings based on peripheral inconsistencies and delay; portions of the appellant's affidavit and the 29 September 2017 Syria NDP are admissible as new evidence; on the balance of probabilities the appellant belongs to the particular social group of young men evading conscription and faces a real risk of detention, forced conscription or torture on return, therefore he is a Convention refugee under IRPA.
Source excerpt
Despite finding some RPD errors on credibility, the appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish a current, well‑founded fear or serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture/death on return to Haiti given the passage of four years without further targeting, change of administration, lack of evidence that militants remain interested in him, and insufficient objective evidence; therefore the RPD's determination is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
