Canada Case Law

VC2-04397

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD determined the determinative issue was credibility, found the RPD's numerous material credibility findings supported by the record, rejected the post‑decision documents as neither new nor probative under s.110(4) and Raza/Singh guidance, found the hearing and interpretation satisfactory and Guideline 4 respected, and therefore affirmed the RPD's decision denying refugee protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Admissibility of new evidence
• Interpreter/translation issues
• Gender considerations
• Procedural fairness
• Religious conversion claims

Read case analysis

TC1-14412

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD: the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they converted to and practiced the Ahmadiyya faith because they did not produce the objective membership documentation reasonably expected under the NDP; post‑decision documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA or of low probative value and appeared to be completing a deficient record; no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness was shown; RPD reasons were adequate when read holistically.

Source excerpt

• New evidence admission
• Credibility assessment
• Procedural fairness
• Corroboration requirements
• Religious conversion claims
• Reasonable apprehension of bias

Read case analysis

TB9-05627

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

On independent review RAD found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant did not genuinely convert to Christianity; significant negative credibility inferences (omission of the divine encounter from the BOC, vagueness and evasiveness, inconsistent statements about timing of conversion and visa matters) were justified, the psychotherapist report and pastor's evidence lacked sufficient probative value to rebut those inferences, and there was insufficient evidence of identification or risk from Iranian authorities; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Religious conversion claims
• Risk of persecution
• Psychotherapist report weight
• Procedural fairness
• Oral hearing request

Read case analysis

Asri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court allowed judicial review in a refugee case, finding the RAD’s credibility analysis and refusal to admit Iranian court documents unreasonable.

• Credibility assessment
• Admission of new evidence on appeal
• Religious conversion claims
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Procedural fairness
• S 110(4) and s 110(6) irpa

Read case analysis

VB5-00744

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD made material errors in assessing credibility and in discounting documentary evidence (including misapprehensions of testimony and overbroad application of country‑condition evidence regarding fraudulent documents), such that the RAD could not reliably defer to the RPD's findings; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD determination and remitted the matter for re‑determination by a different RPD Member under s.111(1)(c).

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Admission of new evidence
• Remand/re‑determination
• Religious conversion claims
• State protection

Read case analysis

TB4-04411

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to establish admissible and material new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Raza, and the RPD's multiple uncontested adverse credibility findings were open on the record; therefore the appellants did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk of serious harm and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Admissibility of new evidence
• Religious conversion claims
• Standard of review
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

TB4-01841

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

All proffered new documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) because their contents predated the RPD decision and could reasonably have been presented at the RPD hearing; no admissible new evidence raised a serious credibility issue central to the RPD decision to justify an oral hearing; the RPD did not breach procedural fairness in proceeding without counsel nor fail to apply guidelines; the RPD's credibility and corroboration findings were reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes, therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility of fresh evidence (s.110(4) irpa)
• Oral hearing discretion (s.110(6) irpa)
• Standard of review
• Credibility assessment
• Sur place
• Religious conversion claims

Read case analysis

Khaliqi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division refusal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Board’s credibility findings on the applicant’s claimed Christian conversion and declined certification.

• Credibility assessment
• Religious conversion claims
• Convention refugee/person in need of protection
• Standard of review
• Certification of question for appeal
• Credibility-assessment

Read case analysis