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
La Cour fédérale rejette le contrôle judiciaire et confirme la conclusion de la SAR selon laquelle les demandeurs disposent d’une PRI viable en Colombie.
The Federal Court upheld an RPD decision finding viable internal flight alternatives in Colombia and dismissed the applicants’ judicial review.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision denying a refugee claim, holding the credibility findings were reasonable and res judicata did not apply.
On the balance of probabilities the claimant established identity and credible testimony, demonstrated a well‑founded fear of persecution in Gaza because of opposition to Hamas and fear of forced recruitment, and showed absence of effective state protection or internal flight alternative in the occupied territory; additionally the claimant no longer has legal status in Saudi Arabia and cannot safely return there, therefore the claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA.
Source excerpt
Tribunal accepted the claimant’s credible testimony and corroborating evidence, found the CJNG posed a personalized, elevated risk with the means and motive to track him nationwide, concluded state protection in Mexico is ineffective due to corruption and impunity, found Merida not a viable internal flight alternative because CJNG could locate and target him, and therefore determined the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA.
Source excerpt
On an independent review the RAD found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant faces a real risk of forced recruitment by Hezbollah because of his specific and valuable skills and past threats, and that, cumulatively, systemic discrimination and deprivation faced by stateless Palestinians in Lebanon amount to persecution; adequate state protection and any internal flight alternative are not reasonably available anywhere in Lebanon; accordingly the appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee and the appeal is allowed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellant not credible due to material omissions in the Basis of Claim Form and contradictions in testimony, there was no breach of procedural fairness, and therefore the appellant failed to prove he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court remitted a refugee claim because the RPD failed to consider whether the minor applicant’s risk of forced gang recruitment engaged section 96 of the IRPA.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a RAD decision in a refugee claim, finding no unreasonable error, no rebuttal of state protection, and no procedural unfairness.
Cumulative unexplained omissions and material inconsistencies in the Appellant's account (notably omission of the alleged raid/abductions from the original BOC, inconsistent statements about whereabouts and destination of abductees, and omission of reporting to police) justify negative inferences that the raid and abductions did not occur on a balance of probabilities; absent those events the Appellant has not established a personalized risk and the risk is generalized, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
