I am a geek, world history buff, my interests and hobbies are too numerous to mention. I'm a political junkie with a cynical view. I also love law & aviation!
Thursday, August 28, 2014
file IMM-6362-13:IN THE MATTER OF BUJAR HURUGLICA, SADIJE RAMADANI, HANIFEHURUGLICA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONSummary: The Federal Court quashes a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division(RAD), which confirmed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), and refersthe matter back to a differently constituted panel. Copy
file IMM-6362-13:IN THE MATTER OF BUJAR HURUGLICA, SADIJE RAMADANI, HANIFEHURUGLICA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONSummary: The Federal Court quashes a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division(RAD), which confirmed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), and refersthe matter back to a differently constituted panel.
The Applicants filed an application for judicial review of a decision of the RAD
confirming the decision of the RPD that they were neither Convention refugees nor
persons in need of protection. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the
Canadian Council for Refugees obtained intervener status, and their concern related to
the RAD’s application of a standard of review regime to appeals from the RPD. The
Court noted that it was in the interests of justice to allow them to intervene as the issues
in the judicial review were of potential precedential value.
Mr. Justice Phelan, applying the standard of correctness, held that the RAD had erred in
simply reviewing the RPD’s decision on the reasonableness standard rather than
conducting an independent assessment of the Applicants’ claim. The Court noted that the
RAD must review all aspects of the RPD’s decision and come to an independent
assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of
protection. Where the RAD’s assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must
substitute its own decision, but in conducting its assessment, the RAD can recognize and
respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility or where the RPD enjoys
a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion.
A copy of the decision can be obtained via the Web site of the Federal Court: http://casncr-
nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Index
****