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
Hague Convention return application over a child removed from Mexico. The court held Mexico was the child’s habitual residence and rejected a grave-risk exception.
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Akinjisola’s judicial review of the RAD’s refusal of refugee protection, finding the internal flight alternative to Lagos reasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision upholding adverse IFA findings for Nigerian applicants seeking refugee protection.
The RAD allowed the appeals and substituted its own decision granting protection because, after independent assessment, it found the RPD erred: while Abuja was a safe IFA (no evidence Badoo cult operational there or able to track appellants via social media and state protection generally unavailable against Badoo), relocation to Abuja would be objectively unreasonable for this family given the Principal Appellant's advanced age and limited future capacity to provide for dependent associates, likely employment barriers due to age and non-indigeneity, high youth unemployment and housing afforda…
Source excerpt
The RPD erred by placing undue weight on minor discrepancies and applying an overly microscopic credibility analysis and by finding Lagos a viable IFA; credible evidence established repeated targeting and a serious possibility that the female Minor Appellants would be subjected to forced FGM and that state protection would not be forthcoming, therefore the Principal Appellant and female Minor Appellants are Convention refugees; the male Minor Appellant's claim lacks any evidentiary basis and is rejected.
Source excerpt
The RPD erred by relying on revoked jurisprudential guidance and outdated country documents and by failing to assess the totality of the appellants' evidence regarding detectability and unreasonableness of relocation; when up‑to‑date country conditions and the appellants' personal circumstances (indigeneity, economic vulnerability, reliance on Mrs. B's employment and lack of support networks) are properly applied, Lagos and Port Harcourt are not reasonable IFAs and the appellants face a risk throughout Nigeria, so the appeal is allowed and the RAD substitutes a decision that the appellants ar…
Source excerpt
After independent assessment of the record the RAD found the Appellants failed to prove Port Harcourt was unsafe or unreasonable as an IFA: the evidence did not credibly establish that the named agent had the means or motivation to locate or persecute them in Port Harcourt, objective country documentation and personal circumstances (language, education, likely family accompaniment, employment and housing prospects) supported relocation, and medical/mental health evidence was insufficiently corroborated to overcome the IFA; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision rejecting ref…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the Appellant has no ongoing risk from the militants and that reasonable internal flight alternatives exist (Abuja and his home community); any procedural or analytical misstep regarding the formal IFA definition was non‑determinative and did not change the outcome.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because, on an independent review and applying the Rasaratnam two‑pronged IFA test, the decision‑maker correctly found that Abuja is a viable internal flight alternative: there is no serious possibility the appellant would be persecuted there and relocation to Abuja would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96‑97 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly applied the two‑pronged internal flight alternative test and the appellants failed to discharge the onus on a balance of probabilities that relocation to Lagos or Abuja would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or that such relocation would be unreasonable; evidence that the family did not locate or harm them in Lagos and demographic and country‑information evidence about indigeneship and security supported the RPD finding; there was no procedural fairness breach and reliance on the Jurisprudential Guide did not vitiate the dec…
Source excerpt
Explore more
