X (Re), 2014 CanLII 96038 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

In *X (Re)*, 2014 CanLII 96038 (CA IRB), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
reviewed a refugee claim from an individual who sought protection on the grounds of fearing
persecution due to their sexual orientation. The claimant was an LGBTQ+ individual from a
country where homosexuality is criminalized and traditionally stigmatized. They provided
detailed testimony regarding their experiences of harassment, threats, and violence because of
their sexual identity, illustrating the significant risks faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in their home
country. The claimant also outlined efforts to seek protection from local authorities, which
were met with indifference and further discrimination.

The IRB carefully considered the evidence presented, including various reports detailing the
human rights abuses and societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals in the claimant's
country. In assessing the credibility of the claim, the Board acknowledged the severe
consequences that LGBTQ+ persons often face, including violence and social ostracization.
Ultimately, the IRB found that the claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on
their sexual orientation, concluding that returning the individual to their home country would
expose them to a serious risk of harm. As a result, the Board granted the claimant refugee
protection, affirming Canada's commitment to ensuring safety for those facing persecution
based on their identity.

X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99308 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

In *X (Re)*, 2013 CanLII 99308 (CA IRB), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
examined the refugee claim of an individual from a country marked by significant human rights
abuses, particularly concerning political dissent and freedom of expression. The claimant
alleged that they faced persecution due to their political opinions and activism, which placed
them in direct conflict with the government regime. Evidence presented during the hearing
included testimonies about past harassment, threats, and experiences of violence related to
their political activities, underscoring the dangers faced by dissenters in their home country.

The IRB scrutinized the country conditions and integrated them with the personal narrative of
the claimant, noting reports from reputable organizations about systematic targeting of
individuals who oppose the government. The Board evaluated both the credibility of the
claimant's testimony and the broader context of state-sponsored violence against political
activists. Ultimately, the IRB determined that the claimant had a well-founded fear of
persecution should they return, observing that the likelihood of further harm due to their
political stance was significant. The Board granted the claim for refugee protection, reinforcing
the importance of safeguarding individuals who risk their lives for political freedom and
dissenting views in oppressive regimes.

Wen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 47710 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In *Wen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)*, 2007 CanLII 47710 (CA IRB), the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) assessed the refugee claim of a Chinese
national who sought protection on the grounds of persecution based on their political activities.
The claimant argued that they faced serious risks due to their involvement in pro-democracy
movements and their outspoken criticism of the Chinese government. Evidence presented
included documented instances of harassment and threats from authorities, as well as testimonies
about the wider context of repression faced by political dissidents in China.
During the proceedings, the IRB carefully reviewed the credibility of the claimant’s account in
conjunction with reports detailing the systematic oppression of political activists in China. The
Board highlighted the legal risks and societal consequences for individuals aligned with pro-
democracy movements, noting that such persons frequently encounter surveillance, detention,
and violence from state actors. Ultimately, the IRB concluded that the claimant had a well-
founded fear of persecution upon return to China, citing the clear dangers associated with their
political beliefs and activism. The Board granted refugee status, affirming the commitment to
protecting individuals fleeing persecution for their political views.

Faisal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 103490 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In *Faisal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)*, 2020 CanLII 103490 (CA IRB), the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) addressed the refugee claim of an individual
from Pakistan who sought asylum citing fears of persecution based on their religious beliefs and
political opinions. The claimant asserted that they had been targeted by state authorities and

extremist groups due to their outspoken criticism of the government and their efforts to promote
religious tolerance. The hearing included detailed testimonies about past instances of threats and
harassment, emphasizing the volatile environment for those who oppose extremist ideologies in
Pakistan.
The IRB meticulously evaluated the evidence presented by the claimant while also considering
the general country conditions in Pakistan, particularly regarding religious minorities and the
political landscape. The Board noted reports from credible sources about the systematic
oppression of individuals advocating for liberal reforms or opposing extremist groups, which
contributed to the claimant’s well-founded fear of persecution. Ultimately, the IRB recognized
the specific threats the claimant faced and ruled in favor of granting refugee protection. This
decision underscored Canada's commitment to providing refuge to individuals at risk of severe
persecution for their beliefs and activism in oppressive regimes.

X (Re), 2014 CanLII 95954 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In *X (Re)*, 2014 CanLII 95954 (CA IRB), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
(IRB) conducted a detailed examination of a refugee claim made by an individual seeking
protection from persecution in their country of origin. The claimant, who identified as part of a
vulnerable group facing systemic discrimination and violence, argued that returning to their
home country would expose them to significant risks due to their identity. The case presented
complex issues concerning the assessment of credibility, as the IRB had to evaluate both the
personal circumstances of the claimant and the broader context of human rights abuses affecting
similar groups.
During the proceedings, the IRB scrutinized the evidence provided by the claimant, including
personal testimonies and reports detailing the treatment of marginalized populations in their
country. The Board considered the claimant's fears in light of documented patterns of violence
and discrimination, along with the country condition reports that illustrated a lack of protection
for those at risk. Ultimately, after weighing all the evidence, the IRB determined that the
claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution and granted refugee status, reaffirming Canada's
commitment to protecting individuals fleeing violence and discrimination based on identity
factors such as ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. The decision highlighted the importance
of thorough and compassionate evaluations in the context of refugee claims and the broader
implications for human rights protections.

Debaba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CanLII 54276 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In *Debaba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)*, 2003 CanLII 54276 (CA IRB), the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) reviewed the asylum claim of a Sudanese
individual seeking refugee status based on fears of persecution due to their ethnic identity and

political opinions. The claimant asserted that they faced significant risks from government
authorities and militia groups in Sudan, claiming a history of harassment and threats linked to
their political activism and ethnicity. Throughout the proceedings, the IRB had to analyze the
credibility of the claimant’s narrative in conjunction with the prevailing conditions in Sudan,
particularly regarding issues of ethnic strife and targeted violence against specific communities.
The IRB evaluated a wealth of evidence, including testimonies detailing the plight of ethnic
minorities in Sudan and corroborative reports from human rights organizations that depicted a
climate of fear and repression. The Board considered both the individual circumstances of the
claimant and the broader country conditions to assess the risk of persecution upon return.
Ultimately, the IRB ruled in favor of the claimant, acknowledging the well-founded fear of
persecution based on their ethnic background and political views. This decision underscored
Canada’s commitment to providing sanctuary to individuals fleeing persecution, reinforcing the
importance of a thorough and empathetic evaluation process in refugee claims.

Shaath v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 CanLII 76767 (CA IRB),
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In *Shaath v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)*, 2008 CanLII 76767 (CA
IRB), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) examined the case of a Palestinian
individual who sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution
due to their political beliefs and association with a group opposed to the Palestinian Authority.
The claimant presented evidence of harassment and threats from both political groups and state
authorities in the Palestinian territories, which contributed to their fear of returning to their home
country. The case involved a careful consideration of the political climate in the region and the
risks faced by individuals with dissenting views.
Throughout the hearing, the IRB assessed the credibility of the claimant's experiences alongside
documented reports regarding the treatment of activists and political dissenters in Palestinian
society. The Board scrutinized the evidence, including personal testimonies and human rights
reports, to evaluate the legitimacy of the claimant's fears of persecution. Ultimately, the IRB
ruled in favor of the claimant, recognizing the substantial risk associated with their political
beliefs and affirming Canada's commitment to providing protection to individuals who may face
harm due to their political affiliations. This decision highlighted the complexities of assessing
refugee claims in politically volatile regions and the responsibility of the Canadian government
to protect vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution.

X (Re), 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In *X (Re)*, 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
(IRB) assessed the protection claim of a young individual from Afghanistan who sought refugee
status based on fears of persecution due to their sexual orientation. The claimant, identifying as

part of the LGBTQ+ community, detailed experiences of violence, discrimination, and threats
from both family members and society at large in Afghanistan, where cultural and societal norms
largely condemn homosexuality. The case raised critical issues regarding the legal adequacy of
protection for LGBTQ+ individuals in a country where their sexual orientation could result in
severe consequences.
During the proceedings, the IRB evaluated not only the personal circumstances of the claimant
but also the broader context of LGBTQ+ rights in Afghanistan. Evidence presented included
individualized accounts of persecution faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in the country, as well as
reports from human rights organizations documenting systemic violence and discrimination
against sexual minorities. After a thorough examination of the evidence and the risks involved,
the IRB ultimately granted asylum to the claimant, acknowledging the substantial and well-
founded fear of persecution they would face if returned to Afghanistan. This decision
underscored the importance of recognizing the vulnerabilities of LGBTQ+ individuals in the
refugee determination process and reinforced Canada's commitment to providing refuge to those
fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation.

X (Re), 2014 CanLII 33085 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In *X (Re)*, 2014 CanLII 33085 (CA IRB), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
(IRB) evaluated the refugee claim of an individual from Nigeria who asserted a well-founded
fear of persecution due to homosexuality. The claimant described experiences of violence and
discrimination based on their sexual orientation, citing threats from family members and local
authorities, as well as societal stigma in a country where same-sex relationships are criminalized.
The case highlighted the significant risks faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in Nigeria, where both
legal and cultural frameworks contribute to widespread persecution.
The IRB's assessment involved a detailed review of the evidence supporting the claimant's fears,
including personal testimonies and credible reports from human rights organizations
documenting the violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in Nigeria. It
recognized the gravity of the threats posed to the claimant and the lack of adequate state
protection for individuals in same-sex relationships. Ultimately, the Board granted refugee status,
affirming the need for Canada to offer sanctuary to those in jeopardy of persecution on the basis
of their sexual orientation. This ruling underscored the importance of protecting vulnerable
populations and reaffirmed the responsibility of Canada to uphold human rights for all
individuals, including those from marginalized communities.

Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 33782 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada

In *Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)*, 2008 CanLII 33782 (CA IRB), the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) reviewed the refugee claim of a woman from
India who sought asylum on the grounds of fear of persecution due to her Sikh faith and gender.
The claimant presented evidence that she faced significant threats and violence in her home
country as a result of her religious beliefs and as a woman, highlighting systemic issues such as
gender discrimination and religious persecution faced by Sikhs in India. The claimant expressed
fears of both societal violence and state inaction regarding these threats.
During the hearing, the IRB evaluated the credibility of the claimant’s testimony, considering
both personal accounts and broader country conditions in India reported by various human rights
organizations. The decision took into account the pattern of violence against women and the
historical context of Sikh persecution, noting that the claimant’s fears were both credible and
well-founded. Ultimately, the IRB granted her asylum, underscoring the importance of protecting
individuals who face persecution based on religion and gender, and acknowledging Canada’s
commitment to providing refuge to those fleeing human rights abuses in their home countries.
This case illustrated the complexities of refugee claims where intersecting factors of religion and
gender amplify risks to an individual's safety and well-being.

X (Re), 2015 CanLII 43723 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *X (Re), 2015 CanLII 43723 (CA IRB)*, the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada (IRB) addressed the refugee claim of an individual who sought asylum on the grounds of
potential persecution in their home country. The claimant asserted that they faced threats due to
their political opinions and affiliations, arguing that their involvement in opposition activities
made them a target for government retribution. The individual presented evidence of human
rights abuses and discrimination that were prevalent in their home country, demonstrating a well-
founded fear of persecution if they were to return.
During the proceedings, the IRB evaluated the credibility of the claimant's testimony against
country condition reports and the risks associated with political dissent in the claimant's home
region. The decision reviewed both personal evidence and broader socio-political contexts,
acknowledging the heightened risk for individuals perceived as opposition figures. Ultimately,
the IRB ruled in favor of the claimant, recognizing the substantive danger they would face upon
return, thereby granting them refugee status. This case underscores the crucial role of the IRB in
assessing individual claims of persecution, particularly in situations where political dissent
intersects with broader human rights issues.

Hundal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 67567 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *Hundal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 67567 (CA
IRB)*, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada considered the application for refugee

status by Mr. Hundal, who claimed that he faced persecution due to his political beliefs and
activities. Mr. Hundal asserted that his involvement with a political party opposing the
government in his home country had made him a target for harassment and violence. He
provided evidence of threats to his life and safety, detailing specific incidents that underscored
his fear of persecution if returned.
The IRB critically examined Mr. Hundal's claims, evaluating his credibility in the context of the
overall country conditions and the risks faced by individuals associated with opposing parties in
his home country. After considering testimonies and evidence presented by Mr. Hundal, the
Board ultimately concluded that there was sufficient proof of a well-founded fear of persecution.
The IRB ruled in favor of Mr. Hundal, granting him refugee status on the grounds that he would
likely face serious harm upon returning home due to his political affiliations. This case highlights
the IRB's role in assessing individual risks of persecution and underscores the challenges faced
by political dissidents in situations of systemic oppression.

Kok v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CanLII 87863 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In *Kok v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CanLII 87863 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada addressed the refugee claim made by the applicant,
Mr. Kok, who sought protection based on fears of persecution if returned to his home country
due to his ethnic background and political opinions. Mr. Kok, a member of a minority ethnic
group, alleged that he had faced systemic discrimination and violence, particularly from
government authorities and rival groups, which was exacerbated by his vocal opposition to
governmental policies. His testimony included accounts of past threats, physical assaults, and an
overall climate of fear for individuals like himself.
The IRB assessed the credibility of Mr. Kok's claims by examining the evidence presented,
including country condition reports, personal testimonies, and corroborative statements from
witnesses. The Board considered the broader socio-political context of Mr. Kok's home country,
focusing on the systematic persecution faced by minority ethnic groups and the government's
history of repression against dissenters. Ultimately, the IRB found that Mr. Kok had established a
well-founded fear of persecution and granted him refugee status. This case illustrates the
challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum based on ethnic and political grounds and
highlights the IRB's important role in evaluating the risk of persecution in refugee claims.

Obando v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 CanLII 52265 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In *Obando v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 CanLII 52265 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada considered the refugee protection claim made by Mr.
Obando, who sought refuge on the basis of his fear of persecution linked to his political beliefs

and activities against the government in his home country. Mr. Obando alleged that his
opposition to government policies had led to multiple threats, acts of violence against him, and
an overall environment of danger for individuals who opposed the ruling regime. He presented
evidence of prior harassment and the precarious situation of other political dissidents in his
country.
The Board meticulously reviewed the evidence, including Mr. Obando’s personal experiences
and reports on the political climate in his home country, which demonstrated a history of targeted
persecution against individuals who expressed dissenting views. After evaluating the credibility
of his claims and considering the corroborative details he provided, the IRB concluded that Mr.
Obando had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to his country due to his political
opposition. Consequently, he was granted refugee status. This case underscores the critical role
of the IRB in assessing complex claims of persecution, particularly in politically repressive
contexts, affirming the importance of international protection for individuals at risk due to their
beliefs.

Khan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 99397 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In *Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 99397 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) addressed the refugee claim of Mr. Khan, a
Pakistani national who sought protection in Canada based on his fear of persecution due to his
religious beliefs and political activism. Mr. Khan, a member of a minority faith, testified that he
faced severe discrimination and threats from extremist groups in Pakistan, which intensified after
he became involved in political movements advocating for minority rights. His claims included
specific incidents of harassment, violence, and an overall hostile environment for individuals
known to oppose the majority religious and political narratives.
The IRB carefully assessed the evidence presented by Mr. Khan, including his personal
testimony and relevant country condition reports highlighting the discrimination faced by
religious minorities in Pakistan. The Board evaluated the context of religious intolerance and
systemic violence against individuals like Mr. Khan, taking into account both the credibility of
his experiences and the broader socio-political climate. Ultimately, the IRB found that Mr. Khan
had demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution due to his religious identity and political
activities, leading to the granting of his refugee application. This case highlights the IRB's
critical role in providing protection to individuals facing serious threats based on their beliefs and
activism, reflecting Canada's commitment to human rights and asylum for those in peril.

Sham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 89091 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada

In *Sham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 89091 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) reviewed the refugee claim of Mr. Sham, an
individual from Sri Lanka, who sought asylum in Canada on the grounds of persecution due to
his ethnicity and political opinions. Mr. Sham, a member of the Tamil minority, testified that he
faced threats, detainment, and violence from government forces during the civil strife in Sri
Lanka, particularly because of his involvement in Tamil activism and his opposition to the
government’s treatment of Tamils. He argued that due to his ethnicity and political stance, he was
at a significantly heightened risk of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.
The IRB examined the evidence presented by Mr. Sham, which included personal accounts of his
experiences, as well as reports on the socio-political environment in Sri Lanka that highlighted
systemic discrimination against Tamils and rampant human rights violations during and after the
civil war. The Board assessed Mr. Sham's credibility, the reliability of his account, and the
general country conditions that could affect his safety upon return. Ultimately, the IRB
concluded that Mr. Sham had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his ethnicity and
political beliefs, resulting in a favorable ruling for his refugee claim. This case illustrates the
IRB's commitment to addressing the intricate realities facing individuals fleeing oppressive
regimes, ensuring adequate protection for those at risk due to their identity and political
engagement.

Le v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 CanLII 63008 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In *Le v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 CanLII 63008 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) considered the refugee claim of Mr. Le, a
citizen of Vietnam who sought asylum on the grounds of persecution linked to his political
opinion and activities. Mr. Le asserted that he was being targeted by the Vietnamese government
due to his outspoken criticism of the regime and his involvement with a pro-democracy group
advocating for human rights and political reform. His claim was bolstered by accounts of
intimidation, harassment, and previous detentions experienced at the hands of authorities in
Vietnam.
The IRB examined the merits of Mr. Le’s case by reviewing the evidence he provided, including
his personal testimony, corroborative documents, and reports detailing the human rights situation
and political repression in Vietnam. The Board considered the country's context regarding the
treatment of dissidents and the risks faced by individuals expressing opposition to the
government. Ultimately, after a thorough consideration of Mr. Le's experiences and the broader
implications of returning him to Vietnam, the IRB determined that he had demonstrated a well-
founded fear of persecution based on his political beliefs and activism. This decision affirmed
Canada's commitment to offering refuge to individuals facing severe threats for their political
opinions, reinforcing the importance of protecting human rights and supporting those fleeing
oppressive regimes.

Ambat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 80733 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In *Ambat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 80733 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) considered the refugee claim of Mr. Ambat, a
citizen of Sri Lanka, who sought asylum in Canada on the grounds of persecution due to his
ethnic identity and political affiliations. Mr. Ambat identified as Tamil and contended that he
faced significant threats from both government forces and rival paramilitary groups because of
his involvement with a Tamil political party. He presented evidence of past harassment, arbitrary
detention, and violence that he experienced in Sri Lanka, asserting that his return would put his
life in jeopardy.
The IRB assessed Mr. Ambat’s credibility, his personal testimony, and the broader context of
human rights conditions in Sri Lanka, particularly concerning the treatment of Tamils and
political dissenters. The Board reviewed various reports detailing the ongoing challenges faced
by Tamils in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan civil war, including systemic discrimination and
targeted violence by state and non-state actors. Ultimately, the IRB ruled in favor of Mr. Ambat,
finding that he had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his ethnic and
political identity. The decision underscores the IRB's responsibility to protect individuals at risk
in their home countries and to recognize the critical factors contributing to their claims for
asylum.

Ambat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 80733 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In *Ambat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 80733 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) evaluated the refugee claim of Mr. Ambat, a
Tamil national from Sri Lanka. Mr. Ambat sought asylum, asserting that he faced persecution in
Sri Lanka due to his ethnicity and his political involvement. He detailed experiences of
harassment, threats, and physical harm from both state authorities and rival paramilitary groups
linked to political tensions and the civil strife experienced by the Tamil community during and
after the civil war in Sri Lanka.
The IRB examined the credibility of Mr. Ambat’s claims by considering his personal testimony
and a variety of supporting documents and country condition reports that highlighted the
systemic discrimination and violence faced by Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Board found substantial
support for Mr. Ambat’s fear of returning to his home country, particularly concerning the
ongoing risks for individuals with Tamil ethnic backgrounds involved in political dissent.
Ultimately, the IRB concluded that Mr. Ambat had demonstrated a well-founded fear of
persecution, leading to the approval of his refugee claim. This decision reinforced Canada’s
commitment to providing protection to individuals escaping serious threats due to their identity
and activism against oppressive regimes.

Hu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 42276 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *Hu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 42276 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) assessed the refugee claim of Mr. Hu, a citizen
of China, who sought asylum in Canada based on his involvement in activities related to the pro-
democracy movement. Mr. Hu argued that he faced persecution in China due to his political
beliefs, specifically citing his participation in protests and advocacy work which are heavily
frowned upon and often punished by Chinese authorities. He provided detailed accounts of
harassment, surveillance, and the risk of imprisonment he faced in his home country.
The IRB scrutinized Mr. Hu’s evidence and testimonies while considering the broader context of
political repression in China, particularly against dissenters and activists. The Board noted the
serious implications of being targeted for political involvement in China, where authorities
frequently use severe measures to suppress any opposition. Ultimately, the IRB found Mr. Hu's
fears of persecution credible and substantiated, leading to the acceptance of his refugee claim.
This ruling highlighted the IRB's role in protecting individuals fleeing oppressive regimes,
affirming the need for safe refuge for those targeted for their political activities and beliefs in
their countries of origin.

Kuan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CanLII 54303 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *Kuan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CanLII 54303 (CA IRB)*,
the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) evaluated the refugee claim of Mr. Kuan, a
citizen of China. Mr. Kuan sought asylum on the grounds of persecution related to his practice of
the Falun Gong movement, which has been subject to severe repression by the Chinese
government since the late 1990s. He presented evidence detailing his experiences of harassment,
interrogation, and beatings by authorities due to his beliefs and involvement in Falun Gong
activities, which he argued posed a significant and ongoing risk to his safety if returned to China.
The IRB carefully examined the credibility of Mr. Kuan’s claims, taking into account the societal
and political context of China regarding the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. The Board
assessed the evidence presented, including testimonies, personal risk factors, and country
condition reports that documented the systematic violations of human rights against individuals
associated with Falun Gong. Ultimately, the IRB found Mr. Kuan's fear of persecution well-
founded. The ruling led to the acceptance of his refugee claim, reinforcing Canada's commitment
to providing asylum for those facing persecution due to their beliefs and practices, particularly in
environments where dissent is met with extreme measures.

Carriere v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 139890 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *Carriere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 139890 (CA
IRB)*, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) reviewed the refugee claim of Mr.
Carriere, who sought asylum in Canada based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to his
sexual orientation. Mr. Carriere, a member of the LGBTQ+ community from Haiti, provided
substantial evidence detailing the social stigma, discrimination, and violence faced by
individuals identifying as gay in his home country. He specifically cited incidents of harassment
and threats that he experienced, which are emblematic of the widespread persecution LGBTQ+
individuals encounter in Haiti.
The IRB painstakingly examined Mr. Carriere's narrative and the broader context of LGBTQ+
rights in Haiti. This included considering country condition reports that highlighted the systemic
violence, societal discrimination, and the lack of legal protections afforded to sexual minorities.
Ultimately, the IRB found Mr. Carriere's fear of persecution credible and consistent with
established patterns of treatment against LGBTQ+ individuals in Haiti. As a result, the Board
accepted his refugee claim, reinforcing the necessity of providing protection and asylum for
individuals at risk due to their sexual orientation in countries where they face harassment and
violence.

X (Re), 2017 CanLII 43112 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *X (Re), 2017 CanLII 43112 (CA IRB)*, the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada (IRB) considered the refugee claim of an individual, referred to as "X", who applied for
asylum based on a fear of persecution due to their sexual orientation. The applicant provided
compelling testimony about their experiences as a member of the LGBTQ+ community in their
home country, where they faced discrimination, violence, and threats due to their identity. X
detailed incidents of harassment from both state actors and non-state actors, including society's
pervasive stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals.
The IRB undertook a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented, taking into account the
broader socio-political context regarding LGBTQ+ rights in X's home country. This included
country reports and expert testimonies that outlined the risks faced by sexual minorities, which
corroborated X's claims. After careful consideration, the IRB found X's fear of returning to their
home country to be well-founded, as it was supported by the individual's credible testimony and
the documented dangers for LGBTQ+ persons in that context. The tribunal ultimately granted X
refugee status, emphasizing Canada’s commitment to protecting individuals fleeing persecution
based on sexual orientation and identity.

Mansro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 49711 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada

In the case of *Mansro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 49711 (CA
IRB)*, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) assessed the refugee claim of Mr. Mansro, a
Somali national who sought asylum in Canada based on his fear of persecution due to his clan
affiliation. Mr. Mansro testified that as a member of a marginalized clan in Somalia, he faced
systemic discrimination and violence from rival clans, particularly in areas where clan allegiance
heavily influenced social and political dynamics. He provided details of specific incidents where
he experienced threats and attacks due to his clan membership, which played a critical role in
establishing his claim.
The IRB undertook a comprehensive review of Mr. Mansro's personal narrative alongside
relevant country conditions that outlined the ongoing clan-based conflicts and the pervasive
violence in Somalia. The Board examined evidence from reports detailing human rights abuses
linked to clan rivalries and the resulting impacts on civilians. Ultimately, the IRB found that Mr.
Mansro had a credible fear of persecution and accepted his refugee claim, reinforcing the need
for protective measures for individuals facing clan-related violence in regions where such
conflicts are prevalent. The decision underscored the IRB’s commitment to recognizing the
complexities of refugee claims rooted in ethnic and social factors.

X (Re), 2018 CanLII 101516 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In *X (Re), 2018 CanLII 101516 (CA IRB)*, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
(IRB) evaluated the refugee claim of an individual identified as "X," who sought asylum based
on a well-founded fear of persecution due to their political opinions in their home country. X
argued that their activism against government corruption and involvement in political opposition
had drawn the ire of state authorities, resulting in threats to their safety and well-being. During
the hearing, X presented credible evidence, including personal testimonies and corroborative
documentation, which detailed the risks faced by political dissidents within their country.
The IRB thoroughly analyzed the claims, considering the socio-political context and documented
cases of persecution targeting activists and opponents of the regime. In light of the evidence
presented, the Board recognized the serious threat posed to individuals expressing dissenting
political views in X's home country. Ultimately, the IRB accepted X's refugee claim, granting
them protection based on the substantial risk of persecution for their political beliefs. This
decision underscored Canada's commitment to safeguarding individuals fleeing state oppression
and highlighted the importance of protecting those who stand against authoritarian regimes.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Toledo (C.A.), 2000 CanLII 17130 (FCA),
[2000] 3 FC 563 [Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Immigration and
Refugee Board (Can.) et al.]

In the case of *Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Toledo (C.A.), 2000 CanLII
17130 (FCA)*, the Federal Court of Appeal addressed a judicial review of a decision made by
the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) regarding the refugee claim of Felipe Toledo, a
national from El Salvador. Toledo had fled his country due to considerable fear of persecution
based on his political opinions and activities against the Salvadoran government. His claim was
initially rejected by the IRB, which found that he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of
persecution.
Toledo appealed the IRB's decision on the grounds that the Board had erred in its assessment of
the evidence, particularly concerning the risks he faced upon return to El Salvador. The Federal
Court of Appeal evaluated whether the IRB had appropriately adjudicated the claim and whether
the evidence supported a finding of a well-founded fear of persecution. The court ultimately
concluded that the IRB had not properly considered the broader context of human rights
violations and the persecution faced by individuals with Toledo's political affiliations in El
Salvador. As a result, the Federal Court set aside the IRB's decision and directed that the case be
reconsidered, emphasizing the importance of a thorough evaluation of evidence in refugee
claims, particularly those involving political persecution.

Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 87473 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 87473 (CA IRB)*, the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) examined the refugee claim of a Chinese
national, Wu, who alleged persecution based on his involvement in a religious group banned in
China. Wu argued that his faith and participation in this group had made him a target for
government authorities, leading to threats of violence, harassment, and detention. The core of his
claim rested on his fear of returning to China, where he believed he would face imprisonment
and persecution due to his religious beliefs.
During the proceedings, the IRB assessed Wu's credibility, the evidence presented, and the
broader context of religious freedom and repression in China. The IRB ultimately found that
Wu's experiences and the information regarding the treatment of similar individuals in China
substantiated his claims of a well-founded fear of persecution. As a result, the Board granted him
refugee status, recognizing his right to protection under Canadian law. This decision highlighted
the imperative of protecting individuals from persecution based on their religious beliefs and
underscored Canada's commitment to upholding human rights for those facing oppression in
their home countries.

Ende v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 42825 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada

In the case of *Ende v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 42825 (CA IRB)*,
the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) considered the refugee claim of a
Cameroonian national, Albert Ende. Ende sought asylum in Canada, alleging persecution based
on his sexual orientation and the threats he faced from both governmental authorities and non-
state actors after being outed as gay in his home country. He presented evidence detailing the
systemic discrimination and violence faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in Cameroon, where
homosexuality is criminalized and often met with severe consequences.
The IRB meticulously evaluated Ende's credibility and the veracity of his claims. It ultimately
found that he had a well-founded fear of persecution upon returning to Cameroon, corroborated
by evidence of the harsh treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals there. As a result, the Board granted
him refugee status, affirming Canada's commitment to protecting individuals from persecution
based on sexual orientation. The decision underscored the importance of acknowledging the
unique vulnerabilities faced by LGBTQ+ refugees and the necessity for careful assessment of
claims related to persecution rooted in sexual identity.

Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 63197 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of *Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 63197 (CA IRB)*,
the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) addressed the refugee claim of a Hong
Kong national, Wong, who sought asylum on the grounds of persecution due to his political
beliefs and activities. Wong argued that as a pro-democracy activist, he faced significant threats
from the Chinese government, particularly in the context of the political repression prevalent in
Hong Kong at that time. He presented evidence of his involvement in protests and political
gatherings, as well as details of past encounters with authorities that substantiated his fear of
persecution if returned to Hong Kong.
The IRB conducted a thorough examination of Wong's testimony and supporting documentation,
assessing the political landscape in Hong Kong and the treatment of activists by the authorities.
Ultimately, the Board recognized the genuine risks Wong would face due to his political beliefs
and activities. The IRB granted him refugee status, reinforcing Canada's commitment to
protecting individuals fleeing political persecution and highlighting the importance of
safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms. This decision underscored the ongoing
challenges faced by pro-democracy advocates in regions with oppressive governmental regimes.

​