Docket: IMM-13972-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2035
Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald
BETWEEN: |
MOHAMMAD TAHIR JAVAID |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Mr. Javaid [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] decision, confirming the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] determination that he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. The main issue before the RPD and RAD was the credibility of the Applicant and his claim for protection.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who alleged that he was extorted by the religious extremist group Sipah-e-Sahaba (SSP). The Applicant claims that he received threatening telephone calls demanding money. The Applicant was eventually attacked but was able to escape to the safety of the police. He came to Canada and was introduced to an individual working for a law firm, who induced him to sign a false Basis of Claim [BOC], which the Applicant then amended five (5) times.
[3] The RPD denied the Applicant’s claim on the determinative issue of credibility. The Applicant appealed the decision to the RAD and filed new evidence, several pieces of which the RAD admitted. The RAD ultimately dismissed the Applicant’s claim on similar grounds, finding that the Applicant was not credible because he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the filing of a false BOC and because of the delay in amending his false BOC.
[4] The Applicant challenges the RAD decision on numerous grounds. They all mainly impugn the RAD’s analysis and allege that the RAD did not conduct an independent assessment of the RPD’s findings. The Applicant also submits that the RAD did not provide sufficient reasons for finding that the Applicant was not credible in his explanations for filing a false BOC and for the delay in submitting an amended one.
[5] I disagree with the Applicant’s submissions. For the reasons set out below, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[6] This application requires the Court to determine whether the decision under review was reasonable. 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”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8 [Mason]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99; Mason at para 59). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 125–126; Mason at para 73). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping”
exercise, it is a robust form of review (Vavilov at para 13; Mason at para 63). The onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable lies with the applicant (Vavilov at para 100).
[7] With respect to the issue of whether the RAD conducted its own independent analysis, the Applicant submits that it is evident that the RPD made errors and that he offered reasonable explanations to address the contradictions in his BOC, but that the RAD did not accept them. The Applicant submits that the RAD only reiterated the findings of the RPD and expanded on them, without conducting an independent assessment (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157; Gomes v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 506 [Gomes]; Ajaj v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 928 [Ajaj]). I disagree with the Applicant’s position. Unlike the decisions in Gomes and Ajaj, the RAD did not unreasonably defer to the RPD. It provided a 78-paragraph decision in which it revised the RPD’s decision, found errors, but ultimately concluded that the RPD’s errors were not determinative. The RAD further analyzed the evidence and upheld the RPD’s conclusion that the Applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for having filed a false narrative and delayed too much in filing subsequent amendments.
[8] Specifically, the RAD reasonably rejected the Applicant’s justification for filing a false BOC and failing to provide timely amendments on the basis of his father’s death, noting that many claimants also suffer from significant loss and traumatic events but do not file a false BOC. Moreover, the RAD reasonably rejected the Applicant’s alleged lack of knowledge with Canada’s immigration system, noting that the Applicant had experience with immigration systems having previously visited Canada as well as applied for visitor visas in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and a working visa in Saudi Arabia. As an educated and experienced adult, the RAD reasonably concluded that the Applicant knew his BOC was false and ought to have known that he needed to comply with the immigration requirements when making his application, including being truthful in his BOC, especially since the BOC Form includes a caution stating that “[i]t is a serious offence to provide false or misleading information.”
[9] With respect to the issues of having later filed an “honest account”
of his situation and having delayed in providing a truthful BOC, the RAD properly reviewed the evidence and concluded that the Applicant relied on false allegations that went at the very core of his claims and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his actions. The RAD was entitled to draw a negative credibility inference given the delay of the Applicant in making his amendments to his BOC, effectively substituting his narrative with a new one (Sanaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 402 at paras 38–39; Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 830 at para 61; Amiryar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1023 at para 17).
[10] With respect to the new evidence filed by the Applicant, such as the telephone calls, the psychotherapist assessment, the alleged assailants (SSP) and the video clip, the RAD reasonably held that the evidence was not conclusive because the evidence was inconsistent and evolving (and not on mere details), and some of the information was not included in his amendments to his BOC. The Applicant’s testimony was also contradictory in relation to the number of people that were calling him. There was also no evidence on the identities of the individuals in the video clip. On that basis, the RAD did not fail to consider contrary evidence (Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 1 FC 52 at para 16). Moreover, the RAD reasonably concluded that the Applicant’s credibility was undermined and rebutted the presumption of truthfulness (Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302), and that the new evidence did not establish significant threats demonstrating a subjective and objective fear of being harm.
[11] Taken together, the Applicant’s arguments essentially require the Court to reassess and reweigh the evidence, which the Court cannot do absent specific circumstances that do not exist in this case (Vavilov at para 125). There is therefore no basis for the Court’s intervention.
[12] For the reasons set out above, this application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification, nor does any such question arise here.
Email this Content