La Roach v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Source text
La Roach v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2012-10-10 Neutral citation 2012 FC 1184 File numbers IMM-2997-12 Decision Content Date: 20121010 Docket: IMM-2997-12 Citation: 2012 FC 1184 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, October 10, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: NADIA LESLIE LA ROACH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is a judgment as a result of an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [2] The applicant told the story that, given the alleged sexual assault during her childhood, she fled her father when she left Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. [3] The RPD analyzed the evidence that is also before the Federal Court and this same evidence shows that the applicant’s testimony and the written account are not plausible, given the context and the circumstances. The inherent logic of the RPD, which stems clearly from its decision, shows clearly and precisely a thorough consideration of the statements made by the applicant and also an analysis in accordance with Guideline No. 4 relating to women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution. [4] The inconsistencies, ambiguity and implausibilities raised by the RPD, provide a basis (according to the Supreme Court of Can…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
La Roach v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2012-10-10 Neutral citation 2012 FC 1184 File numbers IMM-2997-12 Decision Content Date: 20121010 Docket: IMM-2997-12 Citation: 2012 FC 1184 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, October 10, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: NADIA LESLIE LA ROACH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is a judgment as a result of an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [2] The applicant told the story that, given the alleged sexual assault during her childhood, she fled her father when she left Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. [3] The RPD analyzed the evidence that is also before the Federal Court and this same evidence shows that the applicant’s testimony and the written account are not plausible, given the context and the circumstances. The inherent logic of the RPD, which stems clearly from its decision, shows clearly and precisely a thorough consideration of the statements made by the applicant and also an analysis in accordance with Guideline No. 4 relating to women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution. [4] The inconsistencies, ambiguity and implausibilities raised by the RPD, provide a basis (according to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190) for dismissing the application for judicial review. [5] Therefore, the applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed. JUDGMENT THE COURT ORDERS that the applicant’s application for judicial review be dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Catherine Jones, Translator FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2997-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: NADIA LESLIE LA ROACH c THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: October 10, 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: SHORE J. DATED: October 10, 2012 APPEARANCES: Ornella Saravalli FOR THE APPLICANT Pavol Janura FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ornella Saravalli Counsel Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80