Date: 20251127

Docket: IMM-125-25

Citation: 2025 FC 1892

Ottawa, Ontario, November 27, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant, a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated November 8, 2024, dismissing his appeal of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]. The RPD found that the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The determinative issue before both the RPD and the RAD was the Applicant’s credibility.

[2] The Applicant asserts that the RAD’s decision was unreasonable as the RAD erred in finding that the presumption of truth had been rebutted and this error then tainted the balance of the RAD’s assessment of the Applicant’s credibility.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any basis for the Court’s intervention. Accordingly, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.

I. Background

[4] The Applicant was employed as a farmer in India and was a supporter for the farmer’s union in his community, the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee [Farmers’ Union].

[5] The Applicant arrived in Canada in November 2021 on a multi-entry visitor visa. Shortly after his arrival, the Applicant applied for a work permit, using the form IMM 5710E – “Application to Change Conditions, Extend my Stay or Remain in Canada as a Worker” [Form]. In response to the question “Have you ever committed, been arrested for or been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country or territory?”, the Applicant answered “No”.

[6] Following the denial of the Applicant’s work permit application, he made a refugee claim alleging a fear of persecution or harm at the hands of the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP], as well as the Haryana and Punjab police, due to his participation in farmers’ protests between November 2020 and November 2021, his opposition to government policies and his membership in the Farmers’ Union.

[7] In his Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative, the Applicant detailed two occasions where he stated he was arrested by the Haryana police due to his involvement with the Farmers’ Union:

On October 4^th 2021, I was coming back from Delhi with other members of unions and I was driving the car. At Punjab-Haryana Border Haryana police stopped my car and they asked to step out of the car and then they checked the car. Police did not find any thing [sic] from the car and then they asked all of us questions and purpose of our visit and I said we came from Delhi from the protest location. Inspector called all Khalistanies and militants all of sudden and when I asked why he said so then he said because we are involved in the protest and then I replied saying that you are government employee not BJP’s so you should not use this king [sic] of language. Inspector felt insulted and arrested me and they forcefully put me in a police jeep. I was taken to local police station and then they took my signatures, Photos [sic], signatures on blank papers and kept my adhar card, driving License and wallet.

Police inspector tortured me with leather belts, slapped and punched me many times. Police accused me to working with Khalistani militants and asked me name of others and about their plans whereabouts. After that 2 other policemen beat me when inspector get tried [sic]. Next day morning, my farm union members came and put pressure on the inspector and I was released and inspector threatened me by saying that he is not done with me yet and police put one condition on me to report every month from 1 November 2021 at my local police station. I was medically treated by the doctor.

Early morning of 2^nd November 2021 around 6 am, police raided my house and arrested me and took me to the police station. I was questioned for not reporting on 1^st November 2021 and I said I was wrong fully [sic] arrested and accused by the Haryana police. The SHO at the station said they got the information from Haryana police that I am involved with militants and I am planning to kill BJP leaders in Punjab. I said its all lie and then I was tortured. Next day, I was released with the help of respectables and bribe of 55,000 Rupees was paid. Police told me to work as their informer and I should come to police station on 1^st December again and I should bring about militants. I was again taken to doctor for treatment.

[8] At the RPD hearing, the Applicant testified that the Farmers’ Union gave him the role of spokesperson and that he would “give public speeches to small gatherings in support of the objectives of the protests.” He testified that the police in India would remain interested in persecuting him because of his role as a Farmers’ Union spokesperson during the farmers’ protests. However, the Applicant’s BOC narrative made no mention of his role as a spokesperson for the Farmers’ Union.

[9] In support of his refugee claim, the Applicant submitted affidavits from his father, the Sarpanch of Mansoordeva [Sarpanch] and the district president of the Farmers’ Union.

[10] The RPD rejected the Applicant’s refugee claim, finding that he does not face a serious risk of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, nor is he a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. The RPD found that the determinative issue was credibility.

[11] The RPD found that the presumption of truth had been rebutted due to inconsistencies between the Applicant’s BOC (where he stated he had been arrested twice) and his Form (where he stated he had never been arrested). When confronted with this inconsistency at the hearing, the Applicant stated that he was not aware of the refugee protection process in Canada when he completed his Form. The RPD found that this explanation did not reasonably explain the inconsistency at issue. While the presumption of truth was rebutted, the RPD found that the omission of the arrests from the Form, on their own, was not sufficient to undermine the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection.

[12] The RPD then went on to consider the evidence submitted by the Applicant in support of his refugee claim. The RPD accepted that the Applicant was a member of the Farmers’ Union and that he supported, attended and transported others to the farmers’ protests. However, the RPD found that the Applicant exaggerated his role and profile within the Farmers’ Union and the extent to which he came to the attention of the authorities for his involvement therein. This was material to the Applicant’s forward-facing risk, as the Applicant asserted that his role and profile within the protest movement was a key motivator of ongoing police interest.

[13] The RPD noted that there were inconsistencies between the Applicant’s testimony and his BOC narrative as to when he joined the Farmers’ Union and began participating in protests (November 2020 versus November 2021) which had not been reasonably explained. Given the importance of his role in the Farmers’ Union and his activities therein to the basis of his refugee claim, the RPD was concerned that the Applicant could not accurately and consistently recall when he took part in the protests at the behest of the Farmers’ Union.

[14] With respect to the affidavit submitted by the Applicant’s father, the RPD noted that the affidavit does not reference the Applicant’s role as a spokesperson on behalf of the Farmers’ Union, was partially based on hearsay, was inconsistent with the evidence of the Applicant in certain respects and raised reliability concerns due to the illegible/cut-off notarial stamp and blurred or faded watermarks and security features. The affidavit was found to be probative but only given partial weight.

[15] With respect to the affidavit of the Sarpanch, the RPD had similar reliability concerns as those found with the father’s affidavit. The affidavit did attest to the Applicant’s membership in the Farmers’ Union, but the balance of the affidavit was hearsay. The RPD therefore placed partial evidentiary weight on the Sarpanch’s affidavit.

[16] With respect to the affidavit from the Farmers’ Union district president, the RPD determined that the affidavit was fraudulent because the notarial stamp appeared to have been applied before the text of the affidavit was inserted, as the stamp was obscured by the text. The RPD also noted that the affidavit did not corroborate the Applicant’s evidence of being a spokesperson for the Farmers’ Union nor the dates of key events (such as the Applicant’s arrest). The RPD found these aspects of the affidavit troubling given the Applicant’s evidence that he was approached by the Farmers’ Union to be a spokesperson and that the Farmers’ Union intervened to secure his release from detention. No evidentiary weight was given to this affidavit.

[17] The RPD concluded that there was insufficient corroborating evidence (given that the presumption of truth had been rebutted) to establish that the Applicant acted as a spokesperson or gave public speeches on behalf of the Farmers’ Union. Moreover, the RPD found that there was no reliable or trustworthy evidence to suggest that the police were or are now aware of the Applicant’s alleged role as a spokesperson for the Farmers’ Union, which erodes the foundation of the Applicant’s claim.

[18] With respect to the alleged events of persecution, the RPD found that the Applicant was stopped at a checkpoint in October 2021, but was released without a criminal charge being laid against him. However, given that the Applicant was stopped at a police checkpoint while returning from a large protest, and was questioned along with other protesters at the same time, this suggested to the RPD that he was not targeted by the police because of any specific or prominent role he had during the protests. It also indicated to the RDP that the authorities referenced “involvement with militants” to intimidate the Applicant and other protestors. The RPD further found that the Applicant was detained by police on November 2, 2021, but was subsequently released without charge after a bribe was paid. The RPD found that the police detained the Applicant for financial gain (and not for plotting a political assassination) given that he was released after payment of a bribe and notwithstanding the serious nature of the alleged criminal accusations.

[19] The Applicant alleged that the Punjab police continue to visit his home every two to three months to ask his father about his whereabouts. The continued police visits were not referenced in the Applicant’s BOC narrative, were mentioned in a supplemental BOC, were mentioned in the father’s affidavit and briefly referenced in the Sarpanch’s affidavit. The RPD expressed reservations about this evidence, noting that it was omitted in the original BOC narrative (despite the Applicant being represented by counsel at the time) and that the Applicant could not directly testify to these police visits since he was not there. The RPD expressed doubt regarding the credibility of these allegations and found that the affidavits of the Applicant’s father and the Sarpanch were, notwithstanding the RPD’s concerns about the evidence themselves, insufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the police continue to be motivated to locate or persecute the Applicant for his involvement in the protests or for his perceived support for the Khalistan movement.

[20] The RPD therefore concluded that there was no forward-facing risk to the Applicant and that there was insufficient credible and trustworthy documentary evidence to establish the Applicant’s refugee claim under either section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

[21] The Applicant appealed the RPD’s decision to the RAD, arguing that the RPD erred in finding that there had been a rebuttal of the presumption of truth, as there was no omission from his Form since the Applicant maintained that he had not been arrested. Rather, the Applicant asserted that he had been “extra-judicially detained”. The Applicant asserted that this error regarding the rebuttal of the presumption of truthfulness tainted the RPD’s subsequent credibility findings. The Applicant also contested the RPD’s assessment of the various affidavits he had submitted in support of his claim.

II. The Decision under Review

[22] The RAD found that the RPD had committed no errors in its assessment of the Applicant’s credibility, correctly assessed the Applicant’s role in the Farmers’ Union and correctly assessed the Applicant’s supporting affidavits. The RAD dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the RPD after concluding that the Applicant had not provided credible and trustworthy evidence to establish the central allegations of his refugee claim.

[23] With respect to the rebuttal of the presumption of truth, the RAD did not accept the Applicant’s technical argument that he had not been arrested in India, but rather only extrajudicially detained. The RAD reviewed the relevant portions of the National Document Package for India [NDP], noting that it provides that a police officer who is making an arrest with or without a warrant is bound to produce the accused within 24 hours of his detention before a magistrate. The RAD then found that, on a balance of probabilities, it was satisfied that the Applicant had been arrested on October 4, 2021, as: (a) he was accused of aiding Khalistani militants; (b) the police took his signature, photograph, signatures on blank pieces of paper and confiscated his identification and wallet; and (c) conditions were set requiring him to report to the local police station on the first of each month. The RAD found that the Applicant was also arrested on November 2, 2021, after failing to report to the police station on November 1, 2021.

[24] The RAD acknowledged the ambiguity in the NDP between arrest and extra-judicial detention, but noted that the question before it was not whether the Applicant was inadmissible to Canada based on criminality but, rather, an assessment of credibility — namely, whether the Applicant had directly or indirectly misrepresented or withheld material facts relevant to his work permit application that could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA. The RAD found that the Applicant had done so, as the Applicant considered himself to have been arrested by the police on two occasions: (a) at the time that he signed the Form; and (b) at the time that he appeared before the RPD. In that regard, the RAD noted that the Applicant’s BOC narrative stated that he had been arrested and that he testified before the RPD, in numerous portions of his testimony, that he had been arrested.

[25] The RAD rejected the Applicant’s argument that the RPD’s finding that the presumption of truth had been rebutted led to a flawed assessment of the Applicant’s role in the Farmers’ Union. The RAD agreed with the RPD’s assessment that the Applicant’s testimony was inconsistent with his BOC narrative relating to his role as a spokesperson for the Farmers’ Union, and that his BOC narrative omitted any reference to his position of spokesperson in its entirety. The RAD found that this inconsistency went directly to the facts that concern the very basis of the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection, leading the RAD to draw a negative credibility inference.

[26] The RAD also found no errors in the RPD’s assessment of the affidavit evidence proffered by the Applicant in support of his refugee claim.

III. Issues and Standard of Review

[27] The parties agree and I concur that the applicable standard of review is that of reasonableness. When reviewing for reasonableness, the Court must take a “reasons first” approach and determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified [see Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 8, 59]. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker [see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85]. The Court will intervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [see Adeniji-Adele v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 418 at para 11].

IV. Analysis

[28] The Applicant’s arguments are centered on what the Applicant asserts are the RAD’s unreasonable credibility determinations. First, the Applicant asserts that the RAD unreasonably found that the presumption of truth had been rebutted. The Applicant asserts that the RAD’s interpretation of the NDP was flawed, as the Applicant was never brought before a magistrate and never charged, such that he could not, according to the NDP, have been considered arrested. Without being brought before a magistrate and charged, the Applicant asserts that he was therefore only extrajudicially detained, which did not require him to answer “no” to the relevant question on the Form. Moreover, the Applicant asserts that the RAD engaged in a microscopic analysis of the evidence to improperly conclude that the Applicant believed he was arrested and thus willingly made a misrepresentation on his Form. The Applicant asserts that the RAD handpicked two instances where the Applicant himself used the term “arrested” but then failed to analyze other instances where the Applicant and his counsel stated that he had never been charged.

[29] Second, the Applicant asserts that this unreasonable finding that the presumption of truth had been rebutted tainted the balance of the RAD’s assessment of the Applicant’s credibility. The Applicant argues that this is evidenced by the statement in the RPD’s reasons that, “the [Applicant]’s key contention was that police are motivated to continue to pursue him because of his alleged prominent role in the protests; a role the [RPD] found the [Applicant] did not have, and so would not impel police pursuit […]” Put differently, the Applicant asserts that the RPD determined that the rebuttal of the presumption of truth was fatal to his refugee claim. He further argues that as the RAD upheld the RPD’s credibility determinations, by extension, the RAD also made the rebuttal of the presumption of truth fatal.

[30] Before turning to the Applicant’s arguments, it must be recalled that credibility determinations are part of the fact-finding process and are afforded significant deference upon review [see Onwuasoanya v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1765 at para 10; Fageir v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 966 at para 29; Tran v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 721 at para 35; Azenabor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1160 at para 6]. Such determinations by the RPD and the RAD demand a high level of judicial deference and should only be overturned in the clearest of cases where such determinations are perverse, capricious or made without regard to the evidence [see Liang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 720 at para 12; Fageir, supra at para 29; Tran, supra at para 35].

[31] I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated that this is one of the clearest of cases requiring the Court’s intervention, as I find that the RAD’s credibility determinations (including that the presumption of truth had been rebutted) cannot be characterized as perverse, capricious or made without regard for the evidence that was before the RAD.

[32] With respect to the Applicant’s first argument, I find that the Applicant is advancing an overly technical argument regarding the meaning of the term “arrested” as used in India, one which may be appropriate if the issue before the RAD was a criminal inadmissibility determination. However, the issue before the RAD was simply whether the Applicant could no longer benefit from a presumption that his evidence was truthful. The RAD considered the NDP evidence (including the items relied upon by the Applicant), made an interpretation thereof and then assessed the limited evidence before it regarding the events that transpired while the Applicant was in police custody — which evidence did not establish how long the Applicant was in police custody — leading the RAD to conclude that the Applicant had been arrested. I find nothing perverse or capricious in that determination.

[33] Moreover, I find that the RAD’s reliance on the Applicant’s own characterization of his apprehension by the police as amounting to an arrest — a characterization that the Applicant repeatedly made in his BOC narrative and his testimony before the RPD — was entirely reasonable. While the Applicant criticizes the RAD for not addressing his evidence that he had never been charged, it must be recalled that the Form asked whether the Applicant had ever been arrested for, charged with or convicted of a criminal offence, such that the Form treats an arrest as something distinct from a charge. As such, the RAD’s focus on whether the Applicant had been arrested, regardless of whether he had been charged, was reasonable. It is clear from the evidence that, at the time that the Applicant completed the Form, he considered himself to have been arrested twice by the police in India. On that basis, I find that the RAD’s conclusion that the Applicant made a misrepresentation on the Form was reasonable.

[34] With respect to the Applicant’s second argument — namely, that the rebuttal of the presumption of truthfulness tainted the balance of the RAD’s credibility determinations — I find that there is no merit to this argument. The Applicant’s argument is improperly grounded in the reasons of the RPD, not the reasons of the RAD. Notwithstanding that the RAD agreed with the RPD’s ultimate conclusions on credibility, the RAD did not simply adopt the RPD’s reasons. Rather, the RAD conducted an independent evaluation of the entirety of the evidence in making its determination that the Applicant’s testimony and evidence about his role in the Farmers’ Union was not credible. The Applicant’s role in the Farmers’ Union was analyzed and explained by the RAD independently from the assessment relating to the rebuttal of the presumption of truth.

[35] It is noteworthy that, on this application, the Applicant did not challenge any of the RAD’s findings related to the inconsistencies in his evidence or the problems with the affidavits offered by the Applicant in support of his claim. The RAD’s findings related to this evidence provided ample justification for the RAD’s ultimate determination that the Applicant failed to provide credible and trustworthy evidence to establish the central allegations of his claim for refugee protection.

V. Conclusion

[36] As the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the RAD’s decision was unreasonable, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.

[37] Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-125-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.

“Mandy Aylen”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: