Canada Case Law

MC2-27518

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably found the Appellant not credible based on material inconsistencies (contradiction about a 2018 police beating), implausible and incompatible behaviours (delay in leaving and repeated returns to India), and the weak probative value of supporting affidavits and documents; those credibility findings defeat the Appellant’s claim that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Credibility findings
• Convention refugee determination
• Person in need of protection
• Section 96 and 97 irpa analysis
• Documentary evidence weight

Read case analysis

Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding the RAD’s adverse credibility findings were reasonable.

• Credibility assessment
• Sur place claim
• Reasonableness review (vavilov)
• Documentary evidence weight
• Judicial-review
• Credibility-assessment

Read case analysis

Saidj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision that rejected a refugee claim based on lack of credibility about a conversion to Christianity.

• Credibility assessment
• Religious conversion
• Refugee appeal division review
• Standard of review
• Documentary evidence weight
• Credibility-assessment

Read case analysis

TC1-14982

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Although the appellant established land expropriation, the RAD found insufficient credible evidence on a balance of probabilities of past detention, assault or ongoing PSB interest; a central subpoena was found fraudulent and undermined credibility of related documents; despite limited RPD errors (e.g. expectations about multiple documents or note‑taking), those errors did not alter the outcome. Therefore no nexus to a Convention ground and no forward‑looking risk were proven and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee determination
• Credibility assessment
• Nexus to convention ground
• Persecution risk
• Documentary evidence weight

Read case analysis

TC1-12315

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD upheld the RPD's credibility findings: the Appellant failed to credibly establish he is bisexual or was perceived as such, key factual assertions were inconsistent or implausible given objective country evidence, the documentary materials were self-reported or unreliable and did not overcome credibility defects, and no reasonable basis existed to reverse the RPD; accordingly the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Sexual orientation and gender identity (sogie)
• Persecution
• New evidence admissibility
• Documentary evidence weight

Read case analysis

MC1-03725

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably relied on material contradictions, omissions and unreliable documentary evidence to find the appellant not credible; on the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove he was a UFDG activist, that he was subject to police problems arising from demonstrations, or that he faces a real risk of persecution or serious harm if returned to Guinea.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Convention refugee status
• Person in need of protection
• Political opinion
• Membership and persecution
• Documentary evidence weight

Read case analysis

MC0-09037

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found the RPD erred by overemphasizing minor documentary discrepancies and linguistic differences, thereby misassessing credibility; on reassessment the appellant is credible on the balance of probabilities, has shown a personal risk to life under s97(1)(b), has rebutted state protection, has no viable internal flight alternative in Haiti, and the appeal is allowed with a substituted decision granting protection.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• State protection
• Internal flight alternative
• S97(1)(b) irpa
• Procedural fairness
• Documentary evidence weight

Read case analysis

MC0-09376

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD applied the correctness standard and concluded the RPD did not err: the accumulation of contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the appellant's testimony and forms (including undisclosed Congolese identity and inconsistencies about addresses, witnesses and timing) legitimately undermined credibility and justified the RPD's rejection of the refugee claim under ss.96–97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Credibility
• Identity/document fraud
• Well‑founded fear of persecution
• Standard of review
• Documentary evidence weight
• Ministerial intervention

Read case analysis

TB7-13856

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own because the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings: it improperly treated the appellants' departure via smuggler as implausible, unjustifiably drew a negative inference from a brief delay in claiming, and wrongly discounted credible documentary and testimonial evidence of forced abortion and sterilization; objective country evidence supports a serious possibility of persecution for the Principal Appellant as a woman opposing forced abortion/sterilization and for the Associate Appellant for political opinion opposing family plann…

Source excerpt

• Admission of new evidence on appeal
• Standard of review
• Credibility findings
• Persecution for family planning policies
• Convention refugee determination
• Delay in claiming asylum

Read case analysis

TB8-27038

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD upheld the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable, supported by inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, and because the appellant failed to meet the statutory and Rule-based requirements to admit late/new evidence; therefore the RPD decision rejecting the refugee claim was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Admissibility of new evidence
• Documentary evidence weight
• Country conditions
• Procedural posture

Read case analysis