Docket: IMM-14015-23
Citation: 2025 FC 390
Ottawa, Ontario, March 3, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
BETWEEN: |
CARLOS DANIEL MEDEL DE LA CRUZ
|
AIRY DEL ROSARIO BAUTISTA GUILLEN |
Applicants |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Carlos Daniel Medel de la Cruz [Principal Applicant] and his common-law spouse, Airy del Rosario Bautista Guillen [together, the Applicants] seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], in which it determined that there is no credible basis for the Applicants’ claim for refugee protection, pursuant to s 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[2] The Applicants are citizens of Mexico. The Principal Applicant claims that he operated a snack bar in his village in Mexico. In April 2021, members of the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación [CJNG] began attending at the snack bar. In June 2021, Mr. Juan Valdovinos Mendoza (known also as Senor de los Carriles), a member of the CJNG, asked the Principal Applicant to distribute cocaine in the snack bar. The Principal Applicant refused. Mr. Mendoza then began extorting the Principal Applicant for money, which the Principal Applicant paid. In August 2021, after the Principal Applicant was no longer able to pay the amounts the CJNG demanded, he was attacked in the street and sustained minor injuries.
[3] The Principal Applicant closed the snack bar. His uncle then offered him a job working on tour with a band. On September 15, 2021, the Principal Applicant travelled to the United States [US] on tour and returned to Mexico on November 5, 2021. He travelled to the US again on November 21, 2021, and returned to Mexico on November 22, 2021. He travelled to the US a third time on December 3, 2021, and returned to Mexico on December 5, 2021.
[4] The Applicants claim that they decided to travel to Canada on February 25, 2021. They arrived in Toronto on March 18, 2022, subsequently learned about the Canadian refugee protection program and made a refugee claim on October 6, 2022. The claim was denied by the RPD on October 16, 2023. The RPD’s decision is the subject of this judicial review.
Decision Under Review
[5] The RPD noted that the Principal Applicant travelled to the US on at least three occasions during the time that he claimed to fear for his life at the hands of his agent of persecution, but that he did not seek protection there but instead, voluntarily returned to Mexico each time. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from this. The RPD also found that the Principal Applicant engaged in asylum shopping, having left the safety of the US several times before claiming refugee protection in Canada, which also undercut his subjective fear.
[6] With respect to the Principal Applicant’s lack of corroborating documents concerning the operation of the alleged snack bar, the RPD noted that the only evidence speaking to the business’s existence was a document that established that the Principal Applicant asked local authorities for permission to open a snack bar (no response to that request was produced), and a letter from his mother that simply states that her son operated a business. The RPD acknowledged the Principal Applicant’s testimony that he did not need to pay taxes in Mexico because the business was so small, but noted that he did not provide any records of any kind, invoices, photos, or other documentation to establish that he operated a snack bar. The RPD found that the absence of corroborating documents, viewed in the context of its overall credibility concerns, further eroded the Principal Applicant’s credibility.
[7] Further, the Principal Applicant testified that it was because he operated a busy and profitable snack bar that the CJNG initially took interest in him. However, when asked for details about its operation, he was unable to provide answers demonstrating that his claim was true. Rather, his testimony illustrated that the business made very little money and served very few customers. The snack bar would have been running at a large deficit every month and would not have been able to generate even the meagre monthly profit that the Applicant claimed when questioned. The RPD found that the Principal Applicant’s testimony about the operation of the snack bar was wholly uncredible and without merit and concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Principal Applicant did not operate a snack bar in Mexico. Consequently, that the CJNG did not extort the Principal Applicant as there was no business for them to extort.
[8] Based on these findings, the RPD determined that the Principal Applicant’s testimony was not credible or trustworthy. Further, and pursuant to s 107(2) of the IRPA, that there was no credible basis for the claim.
Issues and Standard of Review
[9] The sole issue arising in this matter is whether the RPD’s decision was reasonable.
[10] The parties submit and I agree that the standard of review is reasonableness. Reasonableness review asks this court to: “develop an understanding of the decision maker’s reasoning process in order to determine whether the decision as a whole is reasonable. To make this determination, the reviewing court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99).
Analysis
Applicants’ position
[11] The Applicants submit that the Principal Applicant had no credibility findings sufficient to support a “no credible basis”
finding, and that the RPD did not appreciate the serious ramifications of their decision. The RPD erroneously focused on only a small portion of the Applicants’ claim to dismiss it in its entirety. In doing so, the RPD ignored numerous other aspects of claim, including most of the evidence provided by the Applicants. The Applicants submit that the Principal Applicant’s testimony was “overall creditable”
and that his truthful testimony was perversely discounted. Further, that the RPD conflated its credibility findings with its finding of “no credible basis”
. All of these errors amount to an unreasonable decision.
[12] Regarding the analysis of the snack bar, the Applicants assert that the RPD did not make any credibility findings concerning the Applicant’s documentation, but instead commented on the sufficiency of that evidence. However, a lack of corroborative evidence, in and of itself, cannot sustain a credibility finding. Moreover, the RPD used its findings to make an implausibility finding about the existence of the snack bar, which should only be made in the clearest of cases. Here, the Principal Applicant explained why there was little documentary evidence as to the existence of the snack bar business, which the RPD failed to address. Regarding the inconsistencies surrounding the snack bar’s operations, the Applicants submit that the Principal Applicant cannot be expected to be a mathematics expert and that the sufficiency of one’s memory is not a credibility test. In any event, his testimony on this point was by and large consistent, straightforward and thus was credible. The RPD also unreasonably concluded that the CJNG would not target the Principal Applicant simply because his business was not profitable.
[13] Concerning the Principal Applicant’s re-availments, the Applicants submit that the RPD unreasonably rejected the Principal Applicant’s reason for re-availing. Further, the three-part test to discern re-availment has not been met (citing Ahmad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1087, among others). The Principal Applicant did not actually receive protection in Mexico. Also, there exists documentary evidence which points to the inadequacy of the police in protecting citizens from cartels. As such, the Applicants submit that the Principal Applicant did not re-avail himself and the RPD’s conclusion on this point was unreasonable.
Respondent’s position
[14] The Respondent asserts that the RPD did not ignore evidence. While the Applicants refer generally to additional documentary evidence in the record, they fail to identify how any of this evidence constitutes credible evidence upon which the RPD could have come to a favourable decision.
[15] Further, the RPD did not err by finding that the absence of corroborating documents proving the existence of the snack bar further impaired the Principal Applicant’s credibility. Additionally, the RPD did not make a negative credibility inference solely due to this lack of evidence, but found that this further eroded the Principal Applicant’s credibility when viewed in the context of its other credibility concerns. Moreover, the Principal Applicant’s omission of reasonably expected evidence surrounding his business is a reasonable ground for a negative credibility finding. The RPD also considered, but did not accept, the Principal Applicant’s explanation for the lack of documentation.
[16] As to the existence of the snack bar, the RPD did not expect the Principal Applicant to be a mathematics expert. What was noteworthy to the RPD was that the Principal Applicant was unable to provide basic information about the business such as the number of customers they served, the hours they operated, and the revenues and profits generated from the business, in a way that would remotely accord with the Principal Applicant’s allegation that he operated a busy and profitable business. Contrary to the Applicants’ submissions, the RPD did not find that extortion was not possible simply because the Principal Applicant’s business did not appear to be successful. Rather, the RPD found that the Principal Applicant’s allegations were not credible due to a variety of contradictions and omissions in his evidence about the business resulting in the finding that the Principal Applicant did not actually operate a snack bar in Mexico. Consequently, his testimony that he operated a busy and profitable business was undermined, and the RPD reasonably found there was no existing business that the cartel would have been able to extort. While the Applicants may disagree with this finding, this disagreement does not ground an arguable issue for judicial review.
[17] Regarding the Principal Applicant’s re-availments, the Respondent submits that the RPD duly considered his explanations but found that he chose to leave a safe location (the US) on at least three occasions before eventually deciding to claim refugee protection in Canada, warranting a negative credibility inference. This finding was reasonable and accords with the jurisprudence. Further, Principal Applicant failed to establish that the returns to Mexico from the US did not constitute re-availment.
Analysis
[18] Section 107(2) of the IRPA states that if the RPD “is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision, it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim”
.
[19] In Rahaman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (CA), 2002 FCA 89 (CanLII) [Rahaman], the Federal Court of Appeal held the following with regard to interpreting s 107(2) of the IRPA (then subsection 69.1(9.1) of the Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c I-2):
[28] Moreover, the wording of subsection 69.1(9.1) provides that a "no credible basis" finding may only be made if there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which the Board member could have upheld the claim. In other words, the Board member may not make a "no credible basis" finding if there is credible or trustworthy evidence before it that is capable of enabling the Board to uphold the claim, even if, taking the evidence as a whole, the Board decides that the claim is not established.
[29] However, as MacGuigan J.A. acknowledged in Sheikh, supra, in fact the claimant's oral testimony will often be the only evidence linking the claimant to the alleged persecution and, in such cases, if the claimant is not found to be credible, there will be no credible or trustworthy evidence to support the claim. Because they are not claimant-specific, country reports alone are normally not a sufficient basis on which the Board can uphold a claim.
[30] On the other hand, the existence of some credible or trustworthy evidence will not preclude a "no credible basis" finding if that evidence is insufficient in law to sustain a positive determination of the claim. […]
[20] The Federal Court of Appeal also held that the RPD should not routinely state that a claim has no credible basis when it concludes that the claimant is not a credible witness; rather, the RPD must examine all the evidence and “conclude that the claim has no credible basis only when there is no trustworthy or credible evidence that could support a recognition of the claim”
(Rahaman, at para 51).
[21] As the Applicants submit, the consequences of a no credible basis decision are significant as they deprive an applicant of the opportunity to appeal their claim to the RAD, and also prevent an automatic stay of removal, as these are only provided for judicial reviews of RAD decisions (IRPA ss 100(2)(c); 231(1)). Accordingly, s 107(2) has been held to set a high threshold that must be met before it may be invoked (Omaboe v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1135 at para 18).
Re-Availment
[22] In my view, it was reasonable for the RPD to conclude that the Principal Applicant lacked credibility with respect to his repeated travel to the US and return to Mexico, despite his claim that he feared for his life from the CJNG at the time of those trips.
[23] The RPD accurately stated that there is a general presumption that persons who are genuinely fleeing persecution will seek protection at the first opportunity, which would normally be at the first safe country they reach. Further, that a negative inference can be drawn from a claimant’s failure to claim in a safe country as it is reasonable to expect that a claimant who has a genuine fear of persecution in their home country will make every effort to seek protection at the earliest opportunity. A failure to do so can undermine their subjective fear and credibility. The RPD stated that while this is not a decisive factor on its own, it is a relevant element that may be taken into consideration in assessing both the statements and actions of the claimant.
[24] I note that the jurisprudence supports that an applicant’s repeated re-availment provides a reasonable basis for a decision-maker to conclude that the applicant lacked a subjective fear of persecution (see for example, Best v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 214 at para 28 [Best], citing Ortiz Garcia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1346, at para 11). It was also open to the RPD not to accept as reasonable the Principal Applicant’s explanation as to why he did not seek refugee status in the US during any of those trips – being that he thought the country was too racist and that everything with the cartel was going to blow over. This does not amount to the RPD unfairly dismissing the Applicants’ explanation, as they submit (Best, at para 28; Alhaddad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 655 at para 31).
[25] Similarly, the Applicants’ argument that the three-part test for re-availment was not met because the Principal Applicant did not actually receive protection in Mexico cannot succeed. First, the test relied upon by the Applicants (voluntariness, intent to re-avail and actual re-availment), as well as the case law cited in support of it, pertains to applications for cessation of refugee protection brought pursuant to s 108 of the IRPA. In that context, and as held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50:
[63] […] there is a presumption that refugees who acquire and travel on passports issued by their country of nationality to travel to that country or to a third country have intended to avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality. This is because passports entitle the holder to travel under the protection of the issuing country. This presumption is even stronger where refugees return to their country of nationality, as they are not only placing themselves under diplomatic protection while travelling, they are also entrusting their safety to governmental authorities upon their arrival.
[26] In cessation matters, the onus is on the Applicant to rebut the presumption. That is not the issue nor the analysis applied in this case. And, in any event, there was no evidence rebutting the presumption.
[27] Rather, based on the evidence, the RPD found that the Principal Applicant travelled to the US three times on his Mexico-issued passport and obtained his US visa on same. It reasonably concluded that the Principal Applicant’s failure to seek refugee protection in the US and his voluntarily returning to Mexico were inconsistent with his alleged fear of persecution. This, together with the Applicants’ decision to only later seek refugee protection in Canada, reasonably supported a finding of a lack of subjective fear and a negative credibility inference.
[28] I also do not agree with the Applicants that the RPD overemphasized re-availment or otherwise erred in not considering that the Principal Applicant was targeted after his third re-availment. The RPD’s point was that the re-availment demonstrated a lack of subjective fear that contributed to its negative credibility finding.
Existence of the Snack Bar
[29] As found by the RPD, the only corroborating documentary evidence tendered to support the existence of the snack bar was a document by which the Principal Applicant requested the local authorities for permission to open a snack bar and a letter from the Principal Applicant’s mother.
[30] The RPD noted that the Principal Applicant had not provided any response from the authorities indicating the request to open the snack bar was approved. The RPD found that this document established only that the Principal Applicant had made the request, not the existence of the snack bar. The RPD also pointed out that the Principal Applicant did not provide any tax records, payroll records, inventory records, invoices, photos, or other documentation to establish that he operated a snack bar. While he submitted that he was not required to pay any taxes in Mexico because his business was too small, which explained why he did not have any tax records, the RPD found that even if that were true, it did not explain why he was unable to provide any other documents to prove that he operated a snack bar.
[31] When appearing before me, the Applicants submitted that the Principal Applicant had also explained that he had no receipts with respect to the business as he had thrown them away, that he did not have a high quality cell phone allowing him to take photos, and that he had changed his cell phone, which explained why he had no photos or receipts, but that the RPD failed to mention this. I note that neither a transcript nor a recording of the RPD are found in the record and counsel for the Applicants did not provide either of these to the Court in support of this submission. In my view, even without also specifically addressing these further explanations, it was not unreasonable for the RPD to expect the Applicant to provide some documentation to establish the operation of the snack bar and to find that his failure to do so negatively impacted his credibility.
[32] As to a letter from the Principal Applicant’s mother, the RPD accurately found that this simply states that her son had a business and provided no specific details as to the nature of the business. It is not evidence that supports the existence of the snack bar.
[33] Contrary to the Applicants’ assertions, as seen from the above, the RPD did explain why the two documents relied upon by the Principal Applicant were not sufficient to establish proof of the existence of the snack bar business.
[34] The Applicants also argue that the RPD erred in drawing negative credibility inferences from the lack of corroborating documentation surrounding the operation of the snack bar because a lack of corroborative evidence, in and of itself, cannot sustain a negative credibility determination. However, and as noted by the Respondent, this was not what the RPD found. Rather, it found that when taken in the context of its overall credibility concerns, the absence of corroborating documents further eroded the Principal Applicant’s credibility.
[35] I also disagree with the Applicants’ submission that the RPD used the lack of corroborating evidence to make an implausibility finding with respect to the existence of the snack bar. The RPD’s reasons clearly explain that its concerns about the snack bar’s existence stemmed from the lack of corroborating documents and the Principal Applicant’s insufficient explanations of same.
Operation and Profitability of Snack Bar
[36] As the RPD noted, it was the Principal Applicant’s testimony that the snack bar business was busy and profitable and that its visible success drew the CJNG’s attention. In other words, his alleged encounters with the CJNG flowed from the success of the snack bar. Thus, it was reasonable for the RPD to note inconsistencies regarding his evidence of the snack bar’s operation and success, and to draw a negative credibility finding from same. And, contrary to the Applicants’ assertion, these were not “small inconsistencies”
.
[37] The RPD engaged in a reasoned analysis of the Principal Applicant’s statements regarding the operation and profitability of the snack bar. It determined, based on the Principal Applicant’s testimony, that the snack bar only averaged a little over three customers a day and that some days the snack bar would likely have zero customers. From those findings, the RPD concluded that with an average of only three customers a day, it was not reasonable to believe that anyone would have seen it as a vibrant, successful enterprise. The RPD also reasonably concluded that, based on the Principal Applicant’s testimony, he would be making significantly less than the average Mexican. Factoring in the Principal Applicant’s testimony as to the monthly operating costs of the snack bar and the monthly revenue, the RPD concluded that the business ran a large monthly operating deficit. This, again, did not align with his evidence that the snack bar was very busy and profitable. The RPD drew its ultimate conclusion on this point when it stated that “the principal claimant had difficulty explaining his operation of the snack bar in a credible fashion and the numbers he provided in terms of revenue and operating costs were contradictory and completely unrealistic”
. Again, it was reasonable for the RPD to note these contradictions, given how focal the success of the snack bar was to the Applicants’ refugee claim.
[38] Moreover, the RPD did not expect the Principal Applicant to “be a mathematician”
as the Applicants contend. There is no indication from the reasons that the RPD was holding the Applicant to a standard of perfection with the figures he provided. I agree with the Respondent that the Principal Applicant’s answers, even if rough estimates, did not align with his evidence, as described by the RPD, that the business was a profitable enterprise and that he was targeted by his agents of persecution for this reason.
Documentary Evidence Not Assessed by the RPD
[39] The Applicants submit that there is additional documentary evidence namely, business documents, support letters from family members, police reports from the Principal Applicant and his mother, proof of the Principal Applicant’s tour, and documentary evidence about the Principal Applicant’s persecutor, but that the RPD did not assess this evidence. Further, that there is evidence to support a refugee claim which ousts the RPD’s no credible basis finding. In their written submissions the Applicants did not further address this submission.
[40] When appearing before me, the Applicants submitted that the documents at issue are police reports concerning complaints made by the Principal Applicant and his mother, a doctor’s note, statements from his mother, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, and newspaper articles. I also note that a record of denunciation recounting a statement made by the Principal Applicant also exists in the record.
[41] In that regard, with respect to proof of the Principal Applicant entering the US as a concert tour employee, the RPD accepted that the Principal Applicant entered the US on three occasions. This was not at issue and documentation supporting the US entries not constitute credible and trustworthy evidence that would render the decision unreasonable. Similarly, the very brief newspaper articles indicate only that Juan Manuel Valdovinos Mendoza (alias “El Senor de los Caballos”
) has been identified as a leader of the CJNG, that the CNJG exists, and that the CJNG extorts many local businesses. These aspects of the Applicants’ claim were not challenged by the RPD; rather, its credibility concerns were with the operation and existence of the snack bar which the Applicants asserted attracted the attention of the CNJG.
[42] The letters from the Applicants’ family members (the Principal Applicant’s brother-in-law, mother, and mother-in-law) are all quite brief. The mother-in-law’s letter describes that her son had been beaten and that he told her that his assailant told him that this was a message to the Principal Applicant who had refused to pay the “Lord of the Carriles.”
The brother-in-law’s letter is to the same effect. The Principal Applicant’s mother’s letter indicates that her car was hit by another car, the occupants of which told her that this was a warning to her son from the man with the horses. The letter also states that the Principal Applicant later told her (when he was in Canada) that he was also being threatened by “Senor de los Carriles”
of the CJNG for refusing to distribute cocaine at his business and when he refused, that he was charged money to continue with his business, which he could not pay.
[43] In my view, although it was open to the RPD to determine that these documents were not sufficient to overcome its existing credibility concerns, especially concerning those surrounding the snack bar, the RPD failed to explain why this documentary evidence did not constitute credible or trustworthy evidence capable of overcoming its concerns.
[44] Of greater concern is the RPD’s treatment of the police reports and doctor’s note.
[45] The record contains a police report from the Central District Prosecutor’s Office: Integral Unit of Investigation and Restorative Justice Jiquipilas. This states that the head of that unit met with the Principal Applicant on August 15, 2021, and that the Principal Applicant affirmed that he would “testify truthfully in the proceedings in which you are about to participate”
. The report goes on to state:
[…] on Friday, August 13, 2021, I left my home in the direction of the city of Cintalapa, Chiapas, since I had to run an errand, this in the morning, but while walking on the central street of Cintalapa, Chiapas, I was suddenly surprised by two male persons, who immediately began to hit me with their fists and then I fell to the ground and that is where they kicked me, during the aggression of these two men they told me that IT WAS A WARNING FROM 'EL SENOE DE LOS CARRILES', but fortunately the people who noticed this were kind enough to help me and the two men stopped hitting me, and those persons who helped me took me to the doctor, where I was attended to and fortunately the blows were only minor injuries, but because of what happened to me I fear that the aggressions will continue against me and that I could lose my life, being this everything that I can inform. From what happened to me I can say that I am very afraid as I could be killed under the orders of 'El Senor de Los Carriles', being this all I wish to state.
[46] The record also contains a “Record of Denunciation”
of the Principal Applicant dated August 14, 2021. It bears a stamp from the Central District Prosecutor’s Office in Cintalapa, Chiapas, and the signatures of the Principal Applicant, Municipal Agent, C. Martin Zarate Cruz and a witness. It reads:
On August 13, 2021, I was walking on central street in Cintalapa, State of Chiapas, when two men attacked me and hit me in the face. I fell to the ground, they kicked me and told me that this was a warning to me. After this everything happened so fast that I could not see their faces.
At that moment other people helped me up and asked me if I had been robbed. One of those people (a stranger) was kind enough to take me to the nearest clinic (I can’t remember the name of the place) on Central Street of Cintalapa, State of Chiapas. Once there I was attended by the doctor, and then I took a taxi straight home. I only had minor injuries.
[47] The record also includes a police report made in the neighbourhood of Cintalapa, Chiapas and dated August 14, 2021, indicating that the police interviewed the Principal Applicant. Under the subheading “Formalities of the Interview”
, the report states:
I want to inform this authority that on August 13, 2021, I was walking down the street in the city of Cintalapa, when two men attacked me, they hit me, but fortunately I was only slightly injured, thanks to some people who were kind enough” “to help me and took me to the doctor. The people who hit me told me that it was a warning from the man in charge of the lanes, so I am afraid that something might happen to me or that they might kill me. That is all I have to say for the moment.
[48] In addition, the record before the RPD included a doctor’s note dated August 13, 2021. The note appears to prescribe two types of medication. One appears to have been an anti-inflammatory injection and the other, pain relief tablets to be taken every 8 hours for 4 days in case of pain.
[49] In my view, the police reports and doctor’s note support the Principal Applicant’s Basis of Claim narrative, which states that he was attacked by two men on August 13, 2021, on the central street of Cintalapa, Chiapas, that those men told the Principal Applicant that this was a warning, and that the Principal Applicant was later taken to a clinic to treat his injuries.
[50] While none of these documents speak to the existence of the snack bar, which the RPD found not to exist, the RPD did not explicitly refer to the above documents and find that they were not, for that reason or otherwise, not credible and trustworthy evidence that supports the Applicants’ refugee claim.
[51] I acknowledge Rahaman, which holds that “the existence of
some credible or trustworthy evidence will not preclude a ‘no credible basis’ finding if that evidence is insufficient in law to sustain a positive determination of the claim”
(at para 30). It may be that these documents are not sufficient on their own to sustain a positive refugee determination, especially in light of the credibility concerns surrounding the existence and operability of the snack bar. However, the problem here is that, although the RPD found the Principal Applicant’s testimony not to be credible, it did not make a determination that the documentary evidence placed before it was not sufficiently credible or not sufficiently central to the issues to ground a positive determination of the claim. That is, the RPD does not appear to have assessed whether or not this evidence was credible or trustworthy evidence that could ground a positive determination of the claim, prior to finding that there was no credible basis for the Applicants’ claim for refugee protection, pursuant to s 107(2) of the IRPA . This is a reviewable error.
Email this Content