Category: Credibility

The Court set aside a decision where the tribunal relied on an immigration form that was not translated to the applicant.

The Court set aside an adverse credibility finding. A discrepancy of one day was not material. The plausibility finding was based on speculation and was not reasonable.

The Court noted that in making a plausibility finding the tribunal had to refer to some evidence to sustain its finding.[P]lausibility findings involve a distinct reasoning process from findings of credibility and can be influenced by cultural assumptions or misunderstandings. Therefore, implausibility determinations must be based on clear evidence, as well as a clear rationalization process supporting the Board’s inferences, and should refer to relevant evidence which could potentially refute such conclusions [emphasis added].

The Court set aside a decision when the PRRA officer applied the wrong risk standard The COurt also found that as credibuility was at issue an oral hearing ought to have been convened.

the COurt allowed a judicial review holding that the board did an incomplete analysis.. even if it rejected some of the evidence it ought to have analyzed the claim with respect to those aspects believed: In my view, the Board focused entirely on the part of the applicants’ claim relating to a long-standing family feud. It was entitled to conclude that the applicants’ evidence relating to that situation was not credible. However, it also had a duty to consider the other grounds put forward by the applicants and consider their merits. The fact that their evidence relating to the feud was not credible did not excuse the Board from considering those other grounds. As I stated in Joseph v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 548, at para 11: The Board must be careful not to dismiss a refugee claim on the basis that it disbelieves parts of the claimant’s testimony, or evidence that does not go to the core of the claim. Sometimes claimants embellish their stories, or they forget minor details. It is unreasonable for the Board to dismiss claims simply because they find evidence at the fringes not to be reliable or trustworthy. Even if the Board finds some evidence not to be credible, it must go on to consider whether there remains a residuum of reliable evidence to support a well-founded fear of persecution.

The Court set aside a decision based on credibility finding that the plausibility findings were completely unreasonable.

The Court set aside a decision base don inconsistencies in the POE notes due to the fact they were not translated to her. The court also noted htere is no requirement for subjective fear under section 97.

The court found that the implausibility findings were completely unreasonable or too insignificant to warrant an adverse credibility finding.

The Court set aside a decision that the evidence was implausible. In particular the court concluded the tribunal erred in not giving any weight to letters from family members.

The Court set aside a decision in which the Member ignored evidence which corroborated the arrest, a fact that the tribunal disbelieved.