One issue that applicants, and in particular refugee claimants, face is that their stories just sound implausible to the third party observer. A tribunal is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality. The courts have been clear that the Immigration and Refugee Board is entitled in assessing credibility to rely on criteria… Continue Reading
Category Archives: Evidence
Consistency on Findings of Credibility
A huge concern amongst applicants who have previously submitted applications or documentation to a decision maker is whether their further submissions will contradict what they previously submitted, and whether this will materially negatively impact their credibility. In short, the existence of contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of an individual or witness is a well-accepted basis for a finding… Continue Reading
Considering the Evidence in its Entirety
One of the most common reasons for seeking judicial review is because of concerns that a tribunal did not consider an applicant’s evidence in its entirety. The jurisprudence is clear that when assessing the credibility of an individual, tribunals have to consider and assess all of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and not just selected portions… Continue Reading
The Benefit of the Doubt
One of the most muddled and confusing areas of Canadian immigration law is the jurisprudence surrounding what standard a decision maker will apply in determining whether to believe an applicant’s or a claimant’s story. Generally, if an applicant’s account appears to be credible, then a decision maker will, unless there are good reasons to the… Continue Reading
Secret Evidence Used Against Me? (On Extrinsic Evidence) [Updated]
Where immigration officers have extrinsic evidence particular to an applicant, and that applicant is unaware that the immigration officer has that evidence, then procedural fairness requires that immigration officers disclose this evidence to the applicant.… Continue Reading
Translating Errors Lead to Successful Judicial Review
In a previous post I introduced some judicial principles regarding the role of translators in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. There, I wrote that: Section 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that a party or witness to any proceeding who does not understand or speak the language in which the… Continue Reading
When an Administrative Delay is an Abuse of Process
The subject of an unreasonable delay often arises in the immigration context. In one case that I am involved with, an individual was in Canada for 11-years before the Canada Border Services Agency expressed concerns that the might be inadmissible to Canada for previous involvement in a group accused of terrorism. In another case, an… Continue Reading
Converting from Judicial Review to an Action
Clients often ask me why federal court actions are limited to judicial reviews. They want to know why it is that they can introduce new evidence and call witnesses at the Immigration Appeal Division, an administrative tribunal, but not in court. There are numerous reasons why federal court actions are limited to judicial review. The… Continue Reading