### Sandhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 56379 (CA IRB)

In **Sandhu v. Canada**, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) evaluated the refugee claim
of a man from India who alleged he faced persecution due to his involvement with a political
party opposing the Indian government. Sandhu argued that he was a target of state-sponsored
violence because of his activism and faced threats to his life upon returning to India. During the
hearings, the Board examined the evidence provided by Sandhu, including his accounts of
previous harassment and reports on the treatment of political dissidents in India.
The IRB ultimately denied Sandhu's application, citing inconsistencies in his narrative and
insufficient corroborating evidence to substantiate his fear of persecution. The Board found
that while political dissenters in India can face risks, Sandhu failed to convincingly demonstrate
a personal well-founded fear of persecution. Following this decision, Sandhu sought judicial
review, contending that the IRB did not adequately assess the risks he faced. The Federal Court
ultimately upheld the IRB's decision, reaffirming the standards required for demonstrating a
credible fear of persecution.

### Chavez c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2005 CanLII 94633 (CA IRB)

In **Chavez c. Canada**, the IRB considered the refugee claim of a Colombian national, who
asserted that he faced significant danger due to his past involvement with leftist guerrilla
groups. Chavez contended that he was at risk of persecution from both the Colombian
government and paramilitary groups owing to his political affiliations. The IRB focused on the
credibility of Chavez's claims and the risks associated with political activists in Colombia,
examining the sociopolitical context surrounding his allegations.

The Board ultimately rejected Chavez's claim, citing insufficient evidence to establish a personal
threat to his safety upon returning to Colombia. The IRB highlighted discrepancies in his
testimony and noted a lack of supporting documentation that would corroborate his fear of
persecution. Following the decision, Chavez applied for judicial review, asserting that the IRB
had failed to consider relevant aspects of his situation. However, the Federal Court upheld the
IRB's findings, reinforcing the requirement for a well-founded fear in refugee claims.

### Pham v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 22393 (CA IRB)

In **Pham v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the case of a Vietnamese national who sought
protection based on his fear of persecution due to his political opinions and activism against the
Vietnamese government. Pham described experiences of harassment and intimidation linked to
his political activities, arguing that his safety would be compromised if he were returned to
Vietnam. The IRB assessed his credibility, the details of his experiences, and the political
landscape in Vietnam to determine the legitimacy of his claims.

Ultimately, the Board denied Pham’s application, citing inconsistencies in his story and
inadequate evidence to substantiate his fear of persecution. The IRB found that while there
were risks associated with political dissent in Vietnam, the applicant did not present a
compelling case for personal persecution. Pham sought judicial review of the decision, arguing
that the Board had not fully emphasized the risks faced by politically active individuals.
However, the Federal Court upheld the IRB’s ruling, emphasizing the Board's authority to assess
the credibility of claims.

​

### Egharevba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 CanLII 33228 (CA IRB)

In **Egharevba v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the information presented by a Nigerian
national claiming refugee status based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to his
ethnicity and political opinions. The claimant described a history of violence and discrimination
against members of his ethnic group and argued that his political activities opposing the
government could lead to retaliation. The IRB focused on the specific circumstances

surrounding Egharevba's experiences and the broader context of ethnic and political conflicts in
Nigeria.

The Board ultimately granted Egharevba's application for refugee protection, recognizing a
credible fear of persecution based on the evidence provided. The IRB concluded that the
systemic risks faced by individuals of the claimant's ethnicity, combined with his political
stance, constituted a well-founded fear of persecution. The decision highlighted the importance
of protecting those who are at risk due to their identity and political beliefs, reaffirming the
IRB's commitment to upholding human rights in the context of refugee claims.

### Gonzales v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 106916 (CA IRB)

In **Gonzales v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a Salvadoran national who
contended she faced persecution due to her association with a political party opposed to the
current government. Gonzales described threats and violence directed at her based on her
political activism and fear of retaliation by government forces. The IRB assessed the credibility
of her claims and extensive reports regarding the political climate in El Salvador, particularly
concerning political repression.

The Board ultimately denied Gonzales's claim, determining that while there were general risks
associated with political dissent in El Salvador, she failed to provide sufficient evidence
demonstrating a personalized fear of persecution. The IRB noted inconsistencies in her
testimony and insufficient corroborative documentation to support her claims. Following the
decision, Gonzales sought judicial review, arguing that the IRB did not adequately consider her
fear. However, the Federal Court upheld the IRB’s decision, emphasizing the requirements for
credible and substantiated claims.

### Deschamp v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 CanLII 76284 (CA
IRB)

In **Deschamp v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a man from Haiti who
alleged persecution due to his political activism and involvement with opposition groups.
Deschamp presented evidence of threats and violence directed at him based on his political
views, arguing that returning to Haiti would expose him to further harm. The IRB carefully
analyzed the applicant’s testimony and the prevailing conditions in Haiti regarding political
dissent.

Ultimately, the Board ruled in favor of Deschamp, granting him refugee status on the grounds
of a well-founded fear of persecution. The IRB found that the evidence presented convincingly
demonstrated the risk associated with his political activities and the systematic repression of
dissent in Haiti. The decision underscored the necessity of protecting individuals who face
genuine risks of persecution based on their political beliefs, highlighting the IRB's role in
evaluating claims within the context of human rights.

### Kazi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 83460 (CA IRB)

In **Kazi v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of a Bangladeshi national who
asserted that he had faced persecution due to his political activism and affiliation with a party
opposing the government. Kazi described multiple incidents of harassment, threats, and
violence occurring as a direct result of his political stance. The IRB carefully analyzed his claims
against the backdrop of Bangladesh's political climate and the specific risks faced by political
activists.

The Board ultimately denied Kazi’s application for refugee protection, concluding that while
risks to political activists were acknowledged in Bangladesh, he had not sufficiently
demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution specific to his circumstances. The IRB
identified inconsistencies in his testimony and noted that he did not present adequate
corroborative evidence supporting his fear. Following the decision, Kazi sought judicial review,
asserting errors by the IRB, but the Federal Court upheld the Board’s findings, reaffirming its
authority regarding credibility assessments.

### Keays v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 54764 (CA IRB)

In **Keays v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed a refugee claim from an individual who fled from a
country experiencing ongoing political turmoil and violence against dissidents. The claimant
argued that they faced targeted persecution due to their opposition to the government and had
experienced direct threats as a result of their political activities. The IRB assessed the
applicant’s story in conjunction with the overall human rights situation in their home country,
taking into account the treatment of political activists.

The Board granted Keays’s application for refugee protection, finding that the evidence
established a credible fear of persecution based on the applicant's political stance. The IRB
recognized the systematic violence and repression faced by dissenters in the claimant's country,
determining that returning them would pose a significant threat to their safety. The ruling
underscored the importance of recognizing individual risks associated with political activism
and the need for international protection for those in vulnerable situations.

### Chartrand v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 CanLII 52295 (CA IRB)

In **Chartrand v. Canada**, the IRB considered the refugee claim of a man from a country
characterized by ethnic tension and violence. Chartrand argued that he was at risk of
persecution due to his ethnicity and previous experiences with violence against his community.
The Board deliberated on the applicant's personal historical context alongside the prevailing
societal dynamics to evaluate whether there was a credible fear of persecution should he
return to his home country.

The IRB ultimately denied Chartrand's application for refugee status, noting that while his
ethnicity may put him at a risk in a generalized sense, he failed to present a compelling case
demonstrating a personal fear of persecution. The IRB deemed his testimony inconsistent and
lacking corroborative evidence from credible sources. Following the decision, Chartrand sought
judicial review, alleging that the IRB did not fully consider the gravity of ethnic violence in the
country, but the Federal Court upheld the IRB's decision citing its discretion regarding
evidentiary assessments.

### Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 90930 (CA IRB)

In **Kaur v. Canada**, the IRB examined the refugee claim of a woman from India who
asserted that her life would be in jeopardy due to her involvement in activism supporting
women's rights. Kaur claimed that she faced threats and violence stemming from her efforts to
advocate for gender equality in a challenging political and social context. The Board analyzed
the credibility of her narrative along with the broader realities of women's rights in India.

The IRB ultimately granted Kaur's application for refugee protection, recognizing the evidence
provided as establishing a well-founded fear of persecution based on her gender and activism.
The Board determined that returning her to India would expose her to significant danger and
that the systemic oppression faced by women advocating for their rights lent credence to her

fears. This decision highlighted the importance of addressing gender-based persecution in
refugee claims and affirmed the IRB's commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals.

### Badesha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 80360 (CA IRB)

In **Badesha v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a Sikh individual from India,
whose application was based on fears of persecution connected to his political opinions and
activities. Badesha reported experiencing harassment and threats due to his identification with
a political party advocating for Sikh rights and the rights of minorities. The IRB examined
Badesha’s testimonies alongside evidence of the treatment of individuals involved in similar
political activities in India.

The Board ultimately denied Badesha’s refugee application, finding inconsistencies in his
statements and a lack of substantiating evidence that would indicate a well-founded fear of
persecution. The IRB acknowledged the risks faced by political activists but determined that
Badesha did not provide compelling evidence to support his claims. Following this decision, he
pursued judicial review, asserting that the IRB failed to address certain aspects of his situation.
However, the Federal Court upheld the IRB’s decision, reaffirming its discretion in assessing
evidence and credibility.

### Lupo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 84684 (CA IRB)

In **Lupo v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of an Ecuadorian individual, who
asserted he faced persecution due to his political beliefs and activism against local corruption.

Lupo detailed incidences of threats and violence linked to his work in a community organization
that opposes corrupt practices within the government. The Board carefully analyzed the
credibility of Lupo's claims against the backdrop of Ecuador's political climate and the
treatment of dissenters.

The IRB ultimately granted Lupo’s application for refugee protection, recognizing a well-
founded fear of persecution based on his political activities. The evidence highlighted systemic
violence against activists in Ecuador, and the Board concluded that returning Lupo would
jeopardize his safety. This ruling underlined the critical role of the IRB in evaluating the risks
faced by individuals opposing oppressive regimes, demonstrating a commitment to
safeguarding those at risk of persecution.

### Aziz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 46157 (CA IRB)

In **Aziz v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of an Iranian national who alleged
that he faced persecution based on his sexual orientation and political beliefs. Aziz reported
experiencing violence and harassment within Iran due to his identity and involvement in
LGBTQ+ advocacy, asserting that returning would expose him to severe risks of persecution.
The IRB examined both the individual circumstances of Aziz and the broader context regarding
the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in Iran.

The Board ultimately granted Aziz’s application for refugee protection, acknowledging the
credible fear of persecution he faced as an openly gay man in Iran. The decision emphasized the
systemic discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals within the country, highlighting the
importance of recognizing such persecution as a legitimate basis for refugee status. This ruling
reinforced the IRB's commitment to protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring safety for
those fleeing oppression based on their identity.

### Dhillon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 102071 (CA IRB)

In **Dhillon v. Canada**, the IRB considered the refugee claim of an individual from India who
asserted that they faced persecution due to their activism for minority rights. Dhillon outlined
experiences of harassment, threats, and violence tied to their advocacy work, arguing that they
would be at significant risk upon returning to India. The Board evaluated the applicant’s claims
in the context of the treatment of political activists and minority groups in the country.

The Board ultimately denied Dhillon’s application, finding inconsistencies in the testimony and
a lack of concrete evidence corroborating the fear of persecution. The IRB acknowledged the
presence of risks for activists in India but determined that Dhillon did not satisfactorily
demonstrate a personal well-founded fear of persecution. After the decision, Dhillon sought
judicial review, asserting that the IRB had overlooked significant evidence, yet the Federal Court
upheld the Board's judgment, underlining the rigorous standards required for refugee claims.

### X (Re), 2004 CanLII 56771 (CA IRB)

In **X (Re)**, the IRB addressed a refugee claim from an unnamed individual who alleged
persecution due to their political beliefs in a country experiencing significant political unrest
and human rights violations. The claimant presented evidence of harassment and violence
directed toward individuals with similar political affiliations, arguing that returning home would
place their life at risk. The IRB examined the specifics of the claimant's experiences in relation
to the broader political climate.

The Board ultimately granted the application for refugee protection, recognizing a well-founded
fear of persecution based on the credible evidence presented. The ruling emphasized the

importance of understanding the socio-political context in which individuals face risks and the
obligation to protect those fleeing persecution for their political beliefs. This case underscored
the IRB's role in safeguarding human rights and the necessity for thorough assessments of
individual circumstances in claims for asylum.

### Siteram v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 CanLII 75614 (CA IRB)

In **Siteram v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the case of a national from Guyana claiming
refugee protection due to persecution related to his political beliefs. The claimant asserted that
his outspoken opposition to political corruption had made him a target for violence by political
factions. The IRB evaluated the evidence presented, including documentation of systemic issues
regarding political rights and safety in Guyana, as well as specific details of Siteram’s
experiences.

Ultimately, the Board granted Siteram’s application for refugee status, recognizing a credible
fear of persecution based on his political activities. The IRB concluded that the evidence
highlighted the systemic risks faced by dissenters, affirming the need to protect individuals who
risk their safety in advocating for governmental accountability. The decision reflected the
importance of providing refuge to those fleeing oppressive regimes and the Board's
commitment to upholding international human rights standards.

### Floriant v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 113521 (CA IRB)

In **Floriant v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a Haitian national who
asserted that he faced persecution due to his political beliefs and activism against corruption in
Haiti. Floriant provided testimony detailing threats and violence directed at him from
government officials and criminal gangs as a result of his opposition to the prevailing
government. During the proceedings, the IRB assessed the credibility of his claims against the
backdrop of the deteriorating political situation in Haiti.

The Board ultimately granted Floriant's application for refugee protection, recognizing that the
evidence he presented established a well-founded fear of persecution. The IRB's decision
emphasized the serious risks faced by individuals who speak out against governmental abuses
in Haiti and reflected a commitment to protecting those at risk of political persecution. This
case highlighted the importance of recognizing personal testimonies in the context of broader
human rights conditions.

### Lang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 88167 (CA IRB)

In **Lang v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of a national from the Democratic
Republic of Congo who alleged persecution related to his ethnic identity and political
opposition. Lang reported multiple incidents of harassment and violence, claiming that he was
targeted due to his support for a political party advocating for the rights of his ethnic group.
The IRB carefully considered the evidence provided, including personal testimonies and reports
on human rights conditions in the DRC.

Ultimately, the IRB denied Lang's application for refugee status, citing inconsistencies in his
testimony and a lack of corroborating evidence to support his claims of persecution. The Board
acknowledged the risks associated with political dissent in the DRC but concluded that Lang
failed to demonstrate a personal well-founded fear of persecution. After the decision, Lang
sought judicial review, claiming misinterpretations by the IRB, but the Federal Court upheld the
Board's findings, reaffirming its authority in credibility assessments.

### X (Re), 2018 CanLII 109764 (CA IRB)

In **X (Re)**, the IRB considered the refugee claim of an individual asserting persecution based
on their sexual orientation in a country with significant anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments. The claimant
provided personal accounts of violence and discrimination they faced due to their identity,
arguing that returning to their home country would expose them to severe risks. The IRB
evaluated the credibility of the individual’s experiences alongside country reports concerning
the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals.

The Board ultimately granted the application for refugee protection, recognizing a well-founded
fear of persecution based on the credible evidence presented. The IRB's decision underscored
the systematic discrimination and violence faced by LGBTQ+ people in the claimant's home
country, reflecting a growing awareness and commitment to protecting marginalized
communities within the context of Canadian asylum law.

### X (Re), 2014 CanLII 94250 (CA IRB)

In **X (Re)**, the IRB assessed a refugee claim from an individual alleging persecution based on
their political beliefs in a region experiencing significant civil unrest. The claimant described
threats and harassment linked to their opposition to government policies, stating that returning
would place them at considerable risk. The IRB examined both the personal narrative and
broader reports detailing the political atmosphere in the individual's home country.

The Board granted the claim for refugee protection, concluding that the evidence substantiated
a well-founded fear of persecution. The IRB emphasized the importance of assessing claims
within the context of heightened political tensions and the risks faced by dissenting voices. This
decision illustrated the IRB's commitment to providing protection for individuals at risk due to
political persecution.

### Gill v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 31073 (CA IRB)

In **Gill v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a national from India who reported
facing threats and violence due to his involvement with a political party that advocates for Sikh
rights. Gill presented evidence detailing prior harassment and intimidation linked to his political
activism, asserting that he would be at risk upon returning to India. The IRB assessed the
credibility of his claims and the overall context regarding the treatment of political dissidents in
India.

The Board ultimately denied Gill's application, citing inconsistencies in his narrative and
insufficient corroboration of his fears of persecution. The IRB acknowledged the existence of
risks for political activists in India, but found that Gill did not convincingly demonstrate a
personal threat. Following the decision, he sought judicial review, contending that the IRB did
not adequately take into account the broader context of political repression, but the Federal
Court upheld the Board's findings.

### Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 96519 (CA IRB)

In **Wu v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of a Chinese national who alleged
persecution due to his religious beliefs and practices. Wu contended that he faced threats from
government authorities because of his participation in an unregistered church. The IRB
examined the applicant's testimony, along with country conditions regarding religious freedom
in China, which included significant government control over religious practices.

The Board ultimately ruled in favor of Wu, granting him refugee protection based on a credible
fear of persecution due to his religious beliefs. The IRB recognized the systematic repression
faced by individuals practicing religions that are not sanctioned by the state, affirming the
necessity of asylum for those fleeing such conditions. This case illustrated the critical role that
religious freedom plays in determining refugee eligibility.

### Mahajan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 89852 (CA IRB)

In **Mahajan v. Canada**, the IRB investigated the refugee claim of an Indian national who
alleged persecution based on his political activities and activism for minority rights. Mahajan
described experiences of intimidation and violence connected to his involvement in protests
and advocacy for equitable treatment for marginalized groups. The IRB considered both his
testimonies and the prevailing conditions regarding human rights in India.

The Board ultimately granted Mahajan’s application for refugee status, recognizing a credible
fear of persecution based on the evidence presented. The IRB concluded that the risks
associated with political dissent and the specific threats to minority advocates in India
warranted protection. This decision underscored the importance of safeguarding individuals
who advocate for human rights in hostile environments.

### Gabriel v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 26590 (CA IRB)

In **Gabriel v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a Haitian national alleging
persecution due to his political activism against corruption in Haiti. Gabriel claimed that he
faced threats from both the authorities and gang members as a result of his outspoken
criticisms of the government. The IRB examined the credibility of his testimony and the broader
context of political violence in Haiti.

Ultimately, the Board granted Gabriel's application for refugee protection, identifying a well-
founded fear of persecution based on the credible evidence of systemic threats against political
activists in Haiti. The IRB's decision highlighted the need to protect individuals facing
persecution for their political beliefs and reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to human rights and
refugee protection.

### Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 98362 (CA IRB)

In **Huang v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of a Chinese national who alleged
persecution based on his political opinions and activism. Huang described incidents of
harassment, threats, and violence due to his involvement with pro-democracy demonstrations.
The IRB considered both personal testimonies and updated reports regarding the treatment of
political dissenters in China.

The Board ultimately denied Huang's application, citing inconsistencies in his testimony and a
lack of supporting evidence for his claims of persecution. While acknowledging the broad risks
associated with political dissent in China, the IRB concluded that Huang did not convincingly
demonstrate a personal well-founded fear of returning to his home country. Huang sought

judicial review, arguing that the IRB misinterpreted key aspects of his claim, but the Federal
Court affirmed the Board's decision.

### Asif v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 131198 (CA IRB)

In **Asif v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim by a national from Pakistan who
asserted that he faced persecution due to his religious beliefs as a member of a minority sect.
Asif provided evidence of targeted violence and discrimination, describing specific incidents
that highlighted the risks faced by individuals belonging to his community. The IRB carefully
evaluated the applicant's credibility and the broader country conditions regarding religious
freedom.

The Board ultimately granted Asif's application for refugee protection, determining that he
could credibly demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution due to his religious identity. The
IRB recognized that minority sects in Pakistan face systemic violence and repression,
emphasizing the importance of providing refuge to those actionable threats to their safety. This
case reflected the IRB's commitment to upholding human rights and protecting vulnerable
populations.

### Wei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 89259 (CA IRB)

In **Wei v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of a Chinese national seeking
protection based on fears of persecution due to their involvement with pro-democracy
activities. Wei described multiple experiences of harassment and surveillance by authorities in

China, asserting that their activism had put them in danger. The IRB examined both the
credibility of Wei's experiences and the overarching situation concerning political dissent in
China.

The Board ultimately denied Wei's application, finding inconsistencies in the account and a lack
of sufficient evidence to substantiate the fear of persecution. While acknowledging the broader
context of repression against activists in China, the IRB concluded that Wei did not adequately
demonstrate a personal and imminent threat. Wei subsequently sought judicial review,
challenging the IRB's findings, but the Federal Court upheld the Board's decision, underscoring
its authority in assessing the credibility of claims.

### Turken c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2016 CanLII 64004 (CA IRB)

In **Turken c. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of an individual from Turkey who
alleged persecution based on their political beliefs and activism against the government. The
claimant provided personal accounts of threats and mistreatment due to their involvement in
opposition activities. The IRB scrutinized both the specifics of the applicant's situation and the
prevailing political landscape in Turkey regarding human rights violations.

Ultimately, the Board granted Turken's application for refugee protection, recognizing a
credible fear of persecution based on the evidence presented. The IRB concluded that returning
Turken to Turkey would expose them to significant risks related to their political beliefs. This
decision reflected the IRB’s commitment to protecting individuals at risk due to their activism in
oppressive regimes.

### X (Re), 2019 CanLII 127902 (CA IRB)

In **X (Re)**, the IRB considered the refugee application of an individual alleging persecution
based on their sexual orientation in a country known for its pervasive discrimination against
LGBTQ+ individuals. The claimant provided detailed accounts of violence and harassment faced
due to their identity, asserting that returning home would place them at severe risk. The IRB
assessed the individual’s testimony alongside current country conditions related to LGBTQ+
rights.

Ultimately, the Board granted the refugee claim, recognizing a well-founded fear of persecution
based on credible evidence. The IRB underscored the need to protect LGBTQ+ individuals
fleeing oppressive environments, reaffirming Canada’s commitment to safeguarding human
rights and ensuring safety for marginalized communities.

### Obasohan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 38864 (CA IRB)

In **Obasohan v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a Nigerian national who
alleged persecution due to his political beliefs and ethnic identity. Obasohan claimed he faced
violence and discrimination from government authorities and local militias because of his
activism for the rights of his ethnic community. The IRB examined the evidence presented,
including personal testimonies about his experiences and reports regarding the state of human
rights in Nigeria.

Ultimately, the IRB granted Obasohan’s application for refugee protection, finding that the
evidence provided established a credible fear of persecution based on both ethnic and political
grounds. The decision emphasized the systemic risks faced by individuals advocating for
minority rights in conflict-prone regions. This case highlighted the IRB's role in protecting those
fleeing conditions of persecution and violence.

### Verbanov v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 CanLII 21362 (CA
IRB)

In **Verbanov v. Canada**, the IRB considered the refugee claim of a national from Belarus
alleging persecution due to political dissent and opposition to government policies. Verbanov
presented evidence of past harassment and threats faced because of his participation in
protests against the ruling government. The IRB evaluated the credibility of his claims while
considering the political situation in Belarus, especially surrounding government crackdowns on
dissent.

The Board ultimately granted Verbanov’s application for refugee protection, concluding that he
established a well-founded fear of persecution based on political grounds. The decision
reflected the IRB's understanding of the risks associated with speaking out against oppressive
regimes and underscored Canada’s commitment to providing refuge for those at risk due to
their political beliefs and activism.

​