Docket: IMM-18096-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1972
Ottawa, Ontario, December 15, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur
|
BETWEEN: |
|
AJMER SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for leave and for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated September 17, 2024 [Decision]. The RAD upheld the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], finding the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] because he had not established the credibility of his claim.
[2] For the following reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
II. Background Facts
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of India and a member of the Scheduled Castes. As a result, his children were discriminated against in school. In April 2022, the Applicant enrolled his daughters in a Christian school where they were treated better.
[4] In May 2022, the Applicant approached a priest to learn about converting to Christianity and began attending church more often. The priest and other Christians began visiting the Applicant’s house to preach. The Applicant was baptized on May 20, 2022, and converted to Christianity in July 2022.
[5] The Applicant fears Hindu fundamentalist groups due to his conversion to Christianity. On July 20, 2022, the Applicant was threatened by a Hindu gang with death unless he stopped attending church, and he and his wife were assaulted on several occasions.
[6] The Applicant’s uncle was angry because he was unsuccessful in respect of a land dispute with the Applicant. Because of this, the uncle alerted local Hindu groups of the Applicant’s new religion which led to those groups to harass the Applicant.
[7] The Applicant also fears persecution from Hindu groups, in particular Bajrang and Shiv Sena, and people from the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] because of his conversion and because he stopped supporting the BJP party and joined the Aam Aadmi Party [AAP]. The Applicant has also been accused of terrorism by local police.
[8] In October 2022, the Applicant relocated to Delhi and in January 2023, he left India for Canada.
III. Decision Under Review
[9] The RAD concluded the Applicant did not credibly establish his conversion to Christianity on a balance of probabilities because of the many unexplained inconsistencies in his story.
[10] The RAD found the Applicant’s knowledge of Christianity was vague, and he did not testify with precision about the main characteristics of Christianity. The RAD noted the Applicant declared his religion to be Hinduism in his Basis of Claim [BOC] and testified before the RPD that he follows Hinduism and Christianity. When asked why he was identified as Hindu in his BOC, the Applicant first stated he did not know why and then later explained it was because he was a Hindu. The RAD did not find these explanations persuasive and found them insufficient to explain the contradiction between his admissions that he follows Hinduism and his alleged adoption of Christianity. Since the Applicant’s claim is based upon his conversion to Christianity, the RAD determined his responses detract from the credibility of his claim.
[11] The RAD held the Applicant’s evidence as to how and when he converted to Christianity was inconsistent. In his narrative, the Applicant describes first attending church in May 2022 and deciding to convert in July 2022. However, the Applicant provided a baptismal certificate which indicates he was baptized on May 20, 2022, before his conversion. The RAD found the certificate contradicts his story and therefore detracts from his credibility.
[12] The RAD noted, when asked about the rules of Christianity, the Applicant testified they get peace in the soul and meditate in God. However, the Applicant could not mention any other rules. The RAD found, while it is not necessary for the Applicant to demonstrate detailed and profound knowledge of Christianity in order to establish the credibility of a conversion, his responses about the principles of Christianity were extremely vague and insufficient to establish he genuinely adopted or converted to that religion.
[13] The RAD also held the allegation that the Applicant faced harm from various stakeholders and also faced arrest by the police was not established because of contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence. Since the Applicant has not established his conversion to Christianity or his attendance at church, the RAD determined he has not established that his uncle saw him going to church and thus informed the Hindu groups who began to harass him.
[14] In respect of the allegation the Applicant’s brother was arrested, the RAD concluded the Applicant could not explain the contradictions in the father and brother’s affidavits. In his affidavit, the Applicant’s father says that the Applicant’s brother BS was detained and tortured by the police on October 19, 2023. In his own affidavit, the Applicant’s other brother DS claims that it was him who was arrested on October 19, 2023. Before the RAD, the Applicant simply argues his brother was detained, and that fact establishes his credibility. For the RAD, this contradiction is important as affiants are expected to be consistent about the events they witnessed or personally experienced.
[15] The RAD also concluded the Applicant had not established his membership with the AAP. The Applicant claimed he was a normal worker for the party, meaning he told people in the villages about the AAP’s policies. However, the Applicant could not provide details about the policies he spoke about with villagers, nor could he describe when and how he did his work. The RAD noted the Applicant did not provide any membership card or letter of support.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[16] The sole issue is whether the Decision under review is reasonable.
[17] Both the Applicant and the Respondent submit, and I agree, that the merits of the Decision are to be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16-17, 23-25, 85, 99, 101-104, 115-126 [Vavilov]).
[18] A reasonable decision is “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Vavilov at paras 85-86; Canada Post Corp v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 at paras 2, 31). A decision will be reasonable if when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility (Vavilov at paras 91-95, 99-100). Reasonableness is the standard of review for the merits of the RAD’s decision, including the specific credibility findings (Abdelgadir v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 721 at para 8).
V. Relevant Dispositions
[19] Section 96 of IRPA defines a Convention refugee:
Convention refugee
|
Définition de réfugié
|
96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
|
96 A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques :
|
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
|
a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
|
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
|
b) soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner.
|
[20] Section 97(1) of IRPA defines a person in need of protection:
Person in need of protection
|
Personne à protéger
|
97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
|
97 (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée :
|
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
|
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
|
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
|
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
|
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
|
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
|
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,
|
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
|
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
|
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
|
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
VI. Analysis
A. Parties’ submissions
[21] The Applicant submits the RAD committed a reviewable error by relying on circular reasoning in their assessment of the Applicant’s credibility. The Applicant cites Vavilov at paragraph 104 where the Supreme Court of Canada stated a decision relying on a “clear logical fallacy such as circular reasoning”
would be unreasonable.
[22] The Applicant refers to Liu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 576 at paragraphs 89-90 [Liu] where the Court addressed the approach to assessing the genuineness of corroborative evidence in light of concerns of the claimant’s credibility. The Applicant underlined that the Court suggests corroborative documentary evidence be “examined independently of general concerns about a claimant’s credibility before it is rejected”
, otherwise the decision maker risks reasoning where “the corroborative evidence is not believed simply because the claimant is not believed”
(Liu at para 89). He further notes that the Court states it is possible the reasons for doubting the claimant’s testimony or credibility “are so strong that they can reasonably support the inference that a foreign public document offered to corroborate that testimony is not genuine”
(Liu at para 90). However, the Court again warns the rejection of the corroborative evidence must not be through the reliance of circular reasoning. In other words, the authenticity of documentary evidence should be assessed independently of a claimant’s credibility. However, circumstances may permit a claimant’s credibility to support the finding of a document being inauthentic.
[23] According to the Applicant and based on the jurisprudence, the RAD relied on circular reasoning in respect of their assessment of the Applicant’s credibility as to whether he had converted to Christianity. The RAD concluded the baptism certificate contradicted the Applicant’s narrative regarding when he decided to convert to Christianity because it indicates he was baptized on May 20, 2022, but converted to Christianity in July 2022. The Applicant argues there is no contradiction since it is possible for the Applicant to have first attended church at the beginning of May 2022 and then be baptized three weeks later on May 20, 2022.
[24] The Applicant cites Oranye v Canada (Citizenship and lmmigration), 2018 FC 390 at paragraph 27 [Oranye] where this Court stated decision makers cannot “mask authenticity findings.”
Quoting Sitnikova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1082 at paragraph 20:
if a decision-maker is not convinced of the authenticity of a document, then they should say so and give the document no weight whatsoever.” This Court in Oranye concluded at paragraph 27 “it is either the affidavits are authentic or fraudulent, but the RAD makes no finding on the point and instead opts to “hedge” by according them little probative value. This is an error of law.
[25] In this case, the Applicant argues the RAD did not explicitly declare the baptism certificate inauthentic or not genuine. Without doing so, the RAD cannot draw an adverse conclusion as to the Applicant’s credibility about his conversion. He claims either the baptism certificate is authentic and confirms his conversion, or it is not genuine and should be given no weight at all.
[26] The Respondent argues the Applicant has misstated the Court’s comments in Vavilov:
[104] Similarly, the internal rationality of a decision may be called into question if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or an absurd premise. This is not an invitation to hold administrative decision makers to the formalistic constraints and standards of academic logicians. However, a reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up”. [Emphasis added]
[27] The Respondent submits it is the Court’s role to ensure the reasoning “adds up”
and not to hold decision makers to strict standards. The Court should consider the internal rationality of the Decision as a whole.
[28] Specifically, the Respondent argues the RAD did not engage in circular reasoning.The baptism certificate clearly contradicts the Applicant’s narrative since the dates are contradictory and the Applicant could not have met the priest and be baptized three weeks later considering the following:
-
a)The evidence does not say the Applicant approached the priest at the beginning of May 2022;
-
b)The Applicant was unable to provide an explanation as to how he could have converted on May 20, 2022, despite being told to learn more about Christianity at the beginning of May 2022; and
-
c)Even if the Applicant could reconcile the inconsistencies in timing, the Applicant has not explained why he was baptized three months before he decided to convert to Christianity. Based on his narrative, the Respondent submits the priest would not baptize him before converting given the Applicant’s evidence the priest told him to wait before converting.
[29] The Respondent also claims that, even if the RAD erred by relying on circular reasoning, the Decision would be reasonable. The RAD discussed several credibility concerns in their Decision, not just the concerns related to the Baptism Certificate. According to the Respondent, the Applicant cannot undermine the reasonableness of the Decision by showing an error in a “minor part”
of the reasons without addressing the numerous other credibility concerns.
B. The RAD decision is reasonable
[30] I agree with the Respondent the RAD’s reasoning in this case is clear and well articulated. There were several credibility issues with the Applicant’s testimony that he was unable to reasonably explain which led the RAD to conclude the Applicant was not credible.
[31] Firstly, I find it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude the baptism certificate negatively impacted the Applicant’s credibility. According to his narrative, the Applicant started going to church in May 2022 after he was advised to come to church more often before becoming a Christian to learn more about this faith. Even if the timing could be reconciled as the Applicant argues, this would not explain why he was baptized three months before he decided to convert in July 2022. It was reasonable for the RAD to conclude the certificate contradicts the Applicant’s story and therefore detracts from his credibility.
[32] Secondly, I find that the RAD did not engage in circular reasoning when addressing the baptism certificate.
[33] Before the RAD, the Applicant claimed the baptism certificate corroborated his story, though he did not attempt to explain the discrepancy between his narrative and the evidence he submitted. The RAD took into consideration the explanation he provided to the RPD when questioned on the baptism certificate which was that the certificate is genuine.
[34] The RAD did not provide an explicit conclusion as to the authenticity of the baptism certificate but rather highlighted the contradiction between the Applicant’s testimony about his conversion to Christianity, his baptism, and the certificate. It was reasonable for the RAD to do so. This was not a matter of circular reasoning. The RAD did not find the baptism certificate to not be credible because they found the Applicant not credible but simply because his testimony contradicts the certificate.
[35] Thirdly, as pointed out by the Respondent, the RAD discussed several credibility concerns in their Decision, not just the concerns related to the baptism certificate. The RAD took into consideration that the Applicant claimed he was Hindu in his BOC and could not explain the error, as well as the fact he alleged having learned about the rules of Christianity before converting but could not discuss these rules. The RAD further reflected on the fact the Applicant and his wife had conflicting accounts on their church attendance which was not explained before the RAD.
[36] The RAD also based its conclusion regarding the Applicant’s credibility on several other contradictions and inconsistencies between the Applicant’s testimony and documentary evidence on the Applicant’s affiliation with a political party and the arrest of his brother. All of these issues contributed to the RAD’s conclusion on credibility.
[37] In Vavilov, the Supreme Court held:
[38] [104] Similarly, the internal rationality of a decision may be called into question if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or an absurd premise. This is not an invitation to hold administrative decision makers to the formalistic constraints and standards of academic logicians. However, a reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up”. In the case at bar, the Decision “adds up”
. The RAD’s conclusion on the lack of credibility is amply supported. In my opinion, the Decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness, justification, transparency and intelligibility, and is justified in light of the factual and legal constraints.
VII. Conclusion
[39] The Applicant has not met his burden of establishing the RAD’s Decision was unreasonable either in the outcome or in the reasons provided. Therefore, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[40] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arises.
Email this Content