Canada Case Law

MC0-09514

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on independent review the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and implausibilities (including delay despite available visas and failure to provide material details); consequently the appellants failed to prove a real chance of persecution or other protected risk and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Person in need of protection
• Credibility findings
• Residual profile (single mother)
• Corroboration
• Chairperson's guideline 4

Read case analysis

TB2-09891

Court

Refugee Protection Division

Although the claimant's evidence of past domestic abuse was credible, she failed to prove an objective risk of persecution on a Convention ground or a s.97 risk because the alleged agent of persecution (the ex-spouse) is a Canadian citizen not resident in Cambodia and there was no evidence he had the means, influence or knowledge of the claimant's whereabouts to procure harm there; speculative assertions do not meet the required evidentiary standard.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee determination
• Person in need of protection (s.97)
• Agent of persecution
• Credibility and delay

Read case analysis

MB6-00933

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The panel rejected the claim because core facts underpinning the risk claim (existence of the first marriage and son, and the alleged pregnancy) were not credible due to material contradictions in testimony and significant documentary irregularities (photocopied seal, inconsistent dates, late-produced documents); without those core facts the panel found no serious possibility of persecution or on-balance risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Person in need of protection
• Credibility assessment
• Forced marriage
• Document authenticity
• Medical evidence (pseudocyesis)

Read case analysis

MB6-02978

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable: the RPD failed to give proper weight to corroborating letters, failed to apply the gender-related persecution guideline with required sensitivity, and committed procedural unfairness by relying on undisclosed material; the aunt's affidavit was not admissible under s.110(4); the appropriate remedy is to set aside the RPD decision and remit the claim to a differently constituted RPD panel with directions to apply Guideline 4 and reassess credibility and documentary evidence.

Source excerpt

• Forced marriage
• Credibility assessment
• Admissibility of fresh evidence (s.110 irpa)
• Application of irb chairperson's guideline 4
• Remittal for redetermination

Read case analysis

Amiryar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court upheld a RAD decision dismissing an Afghan couple’s refugee claim, finding the credibility findings and treatment of documentary evidence were reasonable.

• Credibility findings
• Documentary evidence and probative value
• Application of chairperson's gender guidelines
• Standard of review - reasonableness
• Rpd and rad decision-making
• Credibility-assessment

Read case analysis

TB4-07781

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The claim is rejected because the evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk of torture, death or cruel treatment on a Convention ground; the harms claimed (verbal harassment, difficulty finding work or housing, potential social hostility) amount to discrimination or isolated incidents rather than sustained or systemic persecution, and there is no objective evidence that Lebanese citizens with the claimants' profile are being targeted as a group such that state protection fails.

Source excerpt

• Well-founded fear
• Persecution vs discrimination
• State protection
• Women refugees
• Imputed political opinion
• Country conditions assessment

Read case analysis

TB3-07040

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The panel rejected the claimants' applications because, on a balance of probabilities, their testimony was not credible due to material omissions on POE forms, numerous unexplained contradictions and evasions, failure to provide corroborative documents despite ample time, and the expert psychological report and limited documentary evidence were insufficient to overcome these credibility defects; consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk under ss.96-97 IRPA and the claims fail.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Convention refugee status (ss.96-97 irpa)
• Detention and torture allegations
• Membership in political/religious organization
• Documentary corroboration
• Expert psychological evidence

Read case analysis

TB2-00366

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant's testimony contained material contradictions and lacked trustworthy corroboration, the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a personal risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment, and there was insufficient evidence that state protection in St. Lucia would be unavailable or inadequate.

Source excerpt

• Well-founded fear
• State protection
• Credibility
• Convention refugee status
• Risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment

Read case analysis

TB2-02483

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The panel found the claimant's extensive, unexplained delay in claiming refugee protection, combined with credibility defects and failures to produce corroborating evidence and relevant H&C materials, destroyed the required subjective fear and credibility; for those reasons the claim was rejected and no further assessment of state protection or torture was required.

Source excerpt

• Subjective fear
• Delay in claiming
• Credibility assessment
• State protection
• Humanitarian and compassionate application

Read case analysis

MB1-00466

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The panel accepted that the assault likely occurred but found the principal claimant lacked a sustained subjective fear and failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with direct, relevant and compelling evidence; country documentation showed improved police training and mechanisms, so the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Domestic violence
• State protection
• Convention refugee (s.96 irpa)
• Person in need of protection (s.97 irpa)
• Credibility

Read case analysis