Brown v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1607
In Brown v. Canada (MCI), Justice Sadrehashemi examined the Applicants’ refugee appeal refusal. At issue was whether the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) breached procedural fairness by drawing negative credibility inference from the Applicants’ inability to provide corroborative evidence. On judicial review, Justice Sadrehashemi found that an “omission should not be used to impugn a claimant’s credibility unless it was material and significant to the claim.” Justice Sadrehashemi held that the Refugee Protection Division was required to give the Applicants’ an opportunity to explain the lack of corroborative evidence prior to drawing a negative credibility inference. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Sasi v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1557
In Sasi v. Canada (MCI), Justice Zinn examined the Officer’s decision to refuse an Applicant’s Humanitarian and Compassionate application for failing to “show a link between the evidence of hardship and their individual situation (at para. 15).” On judicial review, Justice Zinn found that the Office should have considered the impact on the Applicant’s return to his home country to make an application for permanent residency in the usual manner. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Mehra v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1591
In Mehra v. Canada (MCI), Justice Sadrehashemi examined the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s refugee appeal on credibility grounds. On judicial review, Justice Sadrehashemi found that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) acted unfairly in raising new credibility findings without giving the Applicant notice its concern and an opportunity to address it. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Daramie v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1570
In Daramie v. Canada (MCI), Justice Southcott examined the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ refugee appeal on credibility grounds. On judicial review, the Applicant argued that given the gender-based nature of their claim, the Refugee Appeal Division did not give adequate attention to the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 (Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board) and therefore made a reviewable error. Justice Southcott found that the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision was unreasonable as it failed to engage with the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 in connection with any of the bases for the adverse credibility determination. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Fardusi v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1568
Fardusi v. Canada (MCI) was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The RAD confirmed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], which determined that the Applicants had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in Chittagong, Bangladesh. As such, the RAD confirmed the RPD’s determination that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. Justice Southcott examined the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ refugee appeal refusal on the grounds of a viable internal flight alternative, as well as the Refugee Appeal Division’s treatment of the admissibility of new evidence. The Court found that it was unreasonable for the RAD to conclude that the evidence was reasonably available to the Applicant at the time of the rejection of their claim, even if the information existed prior to the rejection of the claim, as it would require the Principal Applicant to contact one of their agents of persecution to obtain the necessary corroborative evidence. Justice Southcott concluded that the Refugee Appeal Division’s analysis surrounding proposed new evidence was logically flawed. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Hamid v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1541
In Hamid v. Canada (MCI), Justice Go examined the Refugee Protection Division’s decision to grant the Minister’s cessation application in 2018 on the basis of reavailment, stripping the Applicant of their protected person status. Justice Go took into consideration the fact that the decision was made prior to the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50, a case that developed the law of cessation. On judicial review, Justice Go found that the Refugee Protection Division failed to consider evidence relating to enumerated factors set out in Galindo Camayo, thus making the decision unreasonable. In particular, Justice Go found that the Refugee Protection Division failed to i) assess the state of the Applicant’s knowledge with respect to cessation provisions; ii) address the Applicant’s personal attributes, and iii) consider the severity of the consequences for the Applicant. The application for judicial review was allowed.