Skip to main content

Credibility vs. Plausibility in Refugee Claims

I recently appeared before the Federal Court on a judicial review of a negative Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision. The claimant was a Cuban national accused of flouting Cuba's currency controls. 
The Applicant was self-represented at his refugee hearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). As such, the corroborative evidence was far from idea. However, the RPD did find him to be detailed and consistent in his evidence. The RPD rejected the claimant's documents alleging they could not be independently verified to be authentic. However, the RPD made no actual efforts to verify the documents. The RPD also made a host of negative plausibility findings, which it said disposed of the claim in light of the lack of verifiable corroborative documents.
The claimant exercised his appeal rights to the RAD, which agreed that the RPD had no basis to find the claimant's documents to be fraudulent. However, the RAD simply dismissed the claimant's corroborative documents as "not helpful", without elaborating on why it was so. The RAD then adopted and affirmed the RPD's negative plausibility findings and rejected the appeal.
We then sought judicial review at the Federal Court. The crux of the argument was the difference between credibility findings and plausibility findings. The Courts have consistently held that plausibility findings must only be made in the clearest of cases. Justice Fothergill allowed the Judicial Review, finding that the RAD's negative plausibility findings were not reasonable, and had no basis in the evidence. 
The important take away from this one is to ask whether negative plausibility findings were reasonably made by a decision-maker. Simply because certain events may seem implausible in the Canadian context (or Western culture), does not render them impossible in countries like Cuba. 
The matter will now be returned to the RAD for a new decision to be made by a different Member. Now comes the task of putting forth any further evidence on the claimant's behalf and addressing the issues raised at first instance by the RPD and RAD.
Fulltext of the decision available here.


Popular posts from this blog

Canadian Caregiver Program Overhauled

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) recently announced major changes to the (former) Live-in Caregiver program. The former program has now been split into 2 distinct streams: Caring for Children ClassCaring For People With High Medical Needs Class
These 2 new economic immigration classes will allow those who have Canadian work experience in caring for children or for individuals with high medical needs to apply for permanent residence.
Caring for Children Class
The biggest changed this program is the removal of the “live-in” requirement for caregivers. The program allows anyone who worked full-time in the care of children to apply for permanent residence.
The program requirements are as follows:
Work experience:within the 4 years before the date of the application, have at least 2 years of full-time work experience in Canada as a home child care providerThat the job duties meet the specifications outlined in unit group 4411 of the National Occupation Classification (NOC)Language p…

1F(b) - Exclusion from Refugee Protection

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently released a decision on the interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ("Refugee Convention"). The case is Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68.

This case involved a refugee claimant from Cuba. He had previously been granted refugee status in the United States. While living in the US, the Applicant was convicted and served time in jail for two assaults with a deadly weapon. The US therefore revoked his refugee status and issued a removal warrant.

The Applicant then came to Canada, and made a refugee claim.


The only issue in this case was whether Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention (adopted into our immigration law under s.98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - "IRPA") barred the Applicant from refugee protection because of his past crimes.


Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention reads:

F. The provisions of this Convention s…

Change to Age of Dependent Child to "under 22"

The Government just released Regulations amending the age of dependency from "under 19" to "under 22". However, the changes will not come into force until October 24, 2017. As such, any applications made until that date will continue to face the current definition of a child being "under 19". Nevertheless, this opens up opportunities for those who were unable to include children as dependants to sponsor those who might still be under the age of 22 when the Regulations take effect.  The Full-Text of the Regulations can be found here.