Kayanja v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 46058 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **Kayanja v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 46058**, the
Federal Court of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) regarding the refugee claim of the appellant, Kayanja, a Ugandan national. Kayanja sought
asylum in Canada, asserting that he faced persecution in Uganda due to his sexual orientation as
a gay man. He documented incidents of violence and societal discrimination he experienced,
which were underscored by Uganda's well-documented hostility towards LGBTQ+ individuals.
However, the IRB dismissed his claims, questioning Kayanja's credibility and concluding that he
had not sufficiently established a well-founded fear of persecution.
Upon appeal, the Federal Court found that the IRB had erred in its assessment of Kayanja's
testimony and failed to adequately consider the broader context of LGBTQ+ persecution in
Uganda. The court noted that the IRB did not provide sufficient reasons for its conclusion and
misinterpreted key elements of Kayanja's evidence. The Federal Court allowed the appeal,
ordered the IRB's decision to be quashed, and remitted the case back for a fresh assessment. This
ruling highlighted the necessity for immigration authorities to give appropriate weight to credible
evidence and to recognize the implications of country conditions on the experiences of asylum
seekers, thereby reinforcing the commitment of Canadian law to safeguarding the rights of
individuals facing persecution.

Carr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 95611 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Carr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 95611**, the Federal Court of
Canada reviewed the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) concerning the
refugee claim of the appellant, Carr, who was seeking asylum in Canada from Jamaica. Carr
claimed that he faced persecution due to his sexual orientation as a gay man, detailing incidents
of violence and discrimination he suffered in Jamaica, where same-sex relationships are
criminalized and LGBTQ+ individuals often face severe societal hostility. The IRB initially
rejected Carr's claim, finding him not credible and concluding that he had not established a well-
founded fear of persecution.
The Federal Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carr, emphasizing that the IRB had made
significant errors in its assessment of his credibility and the context of his claims. The court
pointed out that the IRB failed to properly consider the risk faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in
Jamaica and did not adequately address the supporting evidence presented by Carr. As a result,
the Federal Court quashed the IRB's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration,
underscoring the importance of a fair hearing and the necessity for thorough evaluation of
evidence and country conditions in refugee claims. This decision reinforced the principles of
justice and the protection of vulnerable individuals within the Canadian immigration system.

Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 85923 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 85923**, the Federal Court of
Canada assessed the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) regarding the refugee
claim of the appellant, Wong, who fled China citing fears of persecution. Wong asserted that he
was at risk due to his political beliefs and activities that opposed the Chinese government's
policies. After being denied refugee status by the IRB, which found his claims lacked credibility
and were not substantiated by sufficient evidence, Wong sought judicial review in the Federal
Court.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had made critical errors in evaluating Wong’s claims.
Specifically, the court noted that the IRB failed to properly consider the documentation Wong
provided, including evidence of human rights abuses in China and the repercussions faced by
individuals with similar political views. The court highlighted the importance of context in
assessing claims of persecution and the necessity for the IRB to provide clear reasoning for its
findings on credibility. Consequently, the Federal Court quashed the IRB’s decision and ordered
a re-evaluation of Wong's application, affirming the need for careful consideration of the risks
faced by individuals in their home environments when seeking refuge. This case underscored the
legal imperative for immigration authorities to ensure fairness and thoroughness in their
assessments of asylum claims.

Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 73302 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 73302**, the
Federal Court of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) regarding the refugee claim of the appellant, Wong, a Chinese national. Wong's claim
stemmed from his fear of persecution due to his political beliefs and activities that opposed the
Chinese government. He contended that he faced threats due to his participation in pro-
democracy advocacy, particularly his involvement in organizing protests and disseminating
information critical of the Chinese regime. The IRB rejected his application, questioning the
credibility of his testimony and asserting that he had not provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had committed several errors in its assessment of Wong's
claim. It criticized the IRB for failing to adequately consider the evidence presented regarding
human rights violations in China and the potential risks faced by individuals involved in political
dissent. The court emphasized the necessity for the IRB to provide cogent reasons for its
credibility determinations, as well as the importance of contextualizing Wong’s situation within
the broader framework of political repression in China. Ultimately, the Federal Court allowed
Wong's appeal, quashing the IRB’s decision and ordering a reassessment of his refugee claim,

thereby reinforcing the legal obligation to ensure fair treatment of asylum seekers and a thorough
examination of their claims.

Mustafa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 47219 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In **Mustafa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 47219**, the Federal Court
of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) concerning
the refugee claim of Mustafa, who fled from Pakistan. Mustafa sought asylum in Canada,
arguing that he faced persecution due to his political beliefs and activism, which brought him
into conflict with the authorities in Pakistan. He recounted experiences of harassment, threats,
and violence as a result of his efforts to promote democratic reform and human rights. The IRB,
however, rejected his claim, citing inconsistencies in his testimony and insufficient evidence to
substantiate his fear of persecution.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had erred in its evaluation of Mustafa's credibility and in
the overall handling of his case. The court emphasized that the IRB had not adequately
considered the documentary evidence relating to the political climate in Pakistan and the
treatment of activists there. Additionally, the court highlighted the IRB's failure to address
relevant facts, including historical instances of violence against political dissenters in Pakistan.
As a response to these shortcomings, the Federal Court allowed Mustafa's appeal, quashing the
IRB’s decision and ordering the matter to be reassessed. This judgment underscored the
importance of fair and thorough evaluations of refugee claims, particularly those involving
potential persecution based on political beliefs.

Kalonji v. Deputy Head (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada), 2016 PSLREB 31
In the case of **Kalonji v. Deputy Head (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada), 2016
PSLREB 31**, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (PSLREB)
examined an appeal involving a refugee claimant, Kalonji, who sought to challenge the decision
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) regarding his application for asylum. Kalonji, a
citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, alleged that he faced persecution based on his
political beliefs and activities. He argued that the government's decision to reject his claim was
unjust and did not take into account the severity of the risks he faced if returned to his home
country.
The PSLREB found that Kalonji's case raised important issues about the standards and processes
employed by the IRB in assessing refugee claims. The Board noted that it is critical for
immigration authorities to conduct thorough evaluations that include proper consideration of the
evidence provided by claimants and the broader context of human rights conditions in their home
countries. Ultimately, the PSLREB allowed Kalonji's appeal, indicating that the IRB had erred in
its assessment of Kalonji's credible fear of persecution. This decision underscored the importance

of safeguarding the rights of individuals in the asylum process, ensuring that decisions are made
based on a comprehensive understanding of the applicant's situation and the potential dangers
they face upon return to their home countries.

Lin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 CanLII 26505 (CA IRB),
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **Lin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 CanLII
26505**, the Federal Court of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and
Refugee Board (IRB) concerning the refugee claim of Lin, a Chinese national who sought
asylum in Canada on the grounds of persecution due to his political beliefs and activities. Lin
contended that he had been involved in pro-democracy activism in China, where dissent against
the government is harshly punished. His claim included details of harassment and threats he
faced as a result of his political involvement, which he feared would escalate if he were to return
to China.
The IRB ultimately rejected Lin's refugee claim, questioning the credibility of his testimony and
asserting that he failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate his fear of persecution. Upon
reviewing the case, the Federal Court found that the IRB had erred in its assessment of Lin’s
credibility and did not sufficiently consider the broader context of human rights abuses in China.
The court emphasized that the IRB must thoroughly evaluate all relevant evidence, including the
potential risks faced by political activists. As a result, the Federal Court allowed Lin's appeal,
quashing the IRB’s decision and remanding the case for reconsideration, highlighting the
importance of ensuring that asylum seekers are afforded a fair hearing that fully considers their
claims and the dangers they may encounter if returned to their home countries.

Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 99403 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 99403**, the Federal Court of
Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) regarding the
refugee claim of Patel, a national from India. Patel sought asylum in Canada on the grounds of
fear of persecution related to his involvement in political activities against the Indian
government, alleging that he faced threats and harassment as a result of his activism. The IRB,
however, found his claims lacking credibility, asserting that he had failed to convincingly
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to India.
The Federal Court determined that the IRB had made significant errors in its assessment of
Patel's credibility and overlooked relevant evidence that established the potential risks he faced
as a political activist in India. The court criticized the IRB for failing to properly assess the
context of political dissent in India and the treatment of individuals engaged in similar activities.
Ultimately, the Federal Court allowed Patel’s appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and remitting

the case for reconsideration. This ruling underscored the necessity for the IRB to conduct
thorough evaluations of refugee claims, ensuring that the unique circumstances of asylum
seekers are adequately considered in light of the realities of persecution and the political climate
in their home countries.

Khin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 76086 (CA IRB),
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **Khin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII
76086**, the Federal Court of Canada examined the decision made by the Immigration and
Refugee Board (IRB) regarding the refugee claim of Khin, a national from Myanmar. Khin
sought asylum on the grounds of persecution due to his political beliefs and opposition to the
military regime in Myanmar. He provided testimony about the harsh treatment and threats he
faced as a result of his political activism, including the arrest and detention of his peers.
However, the IRB ultimately rejected his claim, citing credibility concerns and a lack of
corroborating evidence to support Khin's account of persecution.
Upon review, the Federal Court found that the IRB had failed to adequately assess the evidence
presented and overlooked the broader context of political repression in Myanmar. The court
highlighted that the IRB did not thoroughly analyze the significance of Khin's involvement in
political activities and the potential risks associated with returning to a country known for its
human rights violations against political dissenters. As a result, the Federal Court allowed Khin's
appeal, quashed the IRB's decision, and remitted the case for reassessment. This ruling
emphasized the importance of a fair evaluation of refugee claims, particularly for individuals
fleeing persecution due to their political beliefs, and underscored the need for the IRB to ground
its decisions in a comprehensive understanding of the contextual realities in the claimant's home
country.

Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 CanLII 56921 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 CanLII 56921**, the Federal Court of
Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) concerning
the refugee claim of Khan, a citizen of Pakistan. Khan sought asylum on the basis that he faced
persecution due to his political beliefs and activities against the Pakistani government,
particularly in relation to his involvement with a political party that sought democratic reform.
He provided testimony regarding threats, harassment, and violence he experienced as a result of
his activism. However, the IRB ultimately rejected his application, questioning his credibility
and deeming his fear of persecution insufficiently substantiated.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had erred in its assessment of Khan's claim, noting that the
Board failed to adequately consider the evidence he provided regarding the political climate in

Pakistan and the risks associated with his political activities. The court criticized the IRB for not
giving sufficient weight to the systematic repression faced by political dissenters in Pakistan,
which potentially impacted Khan's credibility. In light of these findings, the Federal Court
allowed Khan’s appeal, quashing the IRB’s decision and remanding the case for a fresh
assessment. This ruling underscored the importance of a thorough and contextual evaluation of
refugee claims, particularly for those fleeing persecution based on political beliefs, and
emphasized the necessity for immigration authorities to fairly assess credibility in light of
broader country-specific risks.

Armas v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 90740 (CA IRB),
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In **Armas v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 90740**, the
Federal Court of Canada reviewed the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
concerning the refugee claim of Armas, a national from El Salvador. Armas sought asylum on
the grounds of persecution due to his sexual orientation and the accompanying threats and
violence he faced in his home country. He detailed experiences of harassment, discrimination,
and a lack of protection from authorities as a gay man in El Salvador, where societal attitudes
toward LGBTQ+ individuals can be hostile. Despite this testimony, the IRB rejected Armas’s
claim, expressing concerns about his credibility and the overall consistency of his narrative.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had erred significantly in its evaluation of Armas’s
credibility and the evidence presented. The court underscored that the IRB failed to consider the
broader context of violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in El Salvador,
which is crucial in assessing the potential risks faced by asylum seekers like Armas.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the IRB did not provide adequate reasoning for its
credibility determinations, thus undermining the thoroughness of the review process. As a result,
the Federal Court allowed Armas's appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and ordering a fresh
reconsideration of his claim. This case emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive and fair
evaluation of refugee claims, particularly those involving vulnerable populations facing
persecution based on their sexual orientation.

X (Re), 2020 CanLII 101305 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **X (Re), 2020 CanLII 101305**, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
assessed the refugee claim of an appellant identified as "X," who fled from their home country
due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on their sexual orientation. X reported
experiencing severe discrimination, threats, and violence as a member of the LGBTQ+
community in their home country, which profoundly affected their safety and well-being. The
IRB's role was to evaluate the credibility of X's claims and the context of LGBTQ+ rights and
protections in their country of origin.

In its decision, the IRB took into account various factors, including country condition reports and
evidence about societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals. The Board ultimately determined
that X had established a credible fear of persecution, acknowledging the systemic discrimination
and violence faced by LGBTQ+ persons in his country. The IRB ruled in favor of X, granting
refugee status based on the substantiated risks that they would encounter upon return. This case
underscored the importance of recognizing the vulnerabilities of LGBTQ+ individuals in asylum
claims and highlighted the necessity for immigration authorities to conduct thorough and
sensitive evaluations of such applications in light of the dangerous realities faced by these
individuals in their home countries.

Frimpong v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 91185 (CA
IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In **Frimpong v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 91185**,
the Federal Court of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) regarding the refugee claim of Frimpong, a national from Ghana. Frimpong sought asylum
in Canada, alleging that he faced persecution due to his political activities and beliefs,
particularly his opposition to the Ghanaian government. He testified to experiencing threats and
harassment as a result of his activism, claiming that his safety would be jeopardized if he were
returned to Ghana. However, the IRB ultimately rejected his claim, expressing concerns about
the credibility of his testimony and his failure to adequately substantiate his fear of persecution.
Upon reviewing the case, the Federal Court found that the IRB had made significant errors in its
assessment of Frimpong's credibility and did not fully appreciate the context of political dissent
in Ghana. The court pointed out that the IRB failed to acknowledge consistent evidence of
human rights violations against political activists in his home country, which was crucial for
evaluating the risk Frimpong faced if returned. Consequently, the Federal Court allowed
Frimpong's appeal, quashing the IRB’s decision and remanding the case for reconsideration. This
ruling reinforced the need for the IRB to conduct thorough investigations into asylum claims and
to consider the contextual realities of political persecution when making decisions on refugee
applications.

Bahauddin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 92546 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **Bahauddin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 92546**, the
Federal Court of Canada assessed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) regarding the refugee claim of Bahauddin, a national from Bangladesh. Bahauddin sought
asylum in Canada, asserting that he faced persecution due to his political beliefs and activities
against the ruling government in Bangladesh. He provided evidence of threats, harassment, and
violence related to his political activism, arguing that he would be at significant risk if returned

to his home country. Despite this, the IRB rejected his claim, questioning his credibility and
finding that he did not sufficiently demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.
Upon review, the Federal Court concluded that the IRB had erred in its evaluation of Bahauddin's
credibility and failed to adequately consider the evidence illustrating the political climate in
Bangladesh, where political opposition often faces violence and suppression. The court criticized
the IRB for not thoroughly assessing the impact of Bahauddin’s activism and the systemic risks
that individuals in his position encounter. As a result, the Federal Court allowed Bahauddin's
appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and ordering a fresh assessment of his claim. This case
highlighted the necessity for immigration authorities to conduct rigorous evaluations of refugee
claims, particularly in contexts where political dissent is met with severe repercussions, ensuring
that asylum seekers are afforded fair consideration based on the realities in their countries of
origin.

Mcmurray v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 59936 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **McMurray v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 59936**, the
Federal Court of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) concerning the refugee claim of McMurray, a national from Jamaica. McMurray sought
asylum in Canada on the grounds of persecution due to his sexual orientation and alleged threats
he faced from both gang members and family members in Jamaica after being outed. He
provided testimony detailing instances of violence and harassment linked to his identity as a gay
man in a country known for its widespread discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. Despite
this, the IRB dismissed his claim, citing concerns about the consistency of his testimony and his
credibility in presenting evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had made significant errors in its evaluation of
McMurray's case. The court noted that the IRB failed to properly consider the broader context of
human rights abuses against LGBTQ+ individuals in Jamaica, which is critical for assessing the
authenticity of the perils faced by claimants like McMurray. Additionally, the IRB did not
adequately address the specific risks associated with McMurray's circumstances, such as the
threats from gang members and the societal stigma he encountered. Consequently, the Federal
Court allowed McMurray's appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and remanding the case for
further consideration. This ruling emphasized the importance of a nuanced understanding of the
challenges that LGBTQ+ refugees face, reinforcing the need for thorough assessments in refugee
claims based on sexual orientation.

X (Re), 2003 CanLII 68792 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of **X (Re), 2003 CanLII 68792**, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
considered the refugee claim of an individual identified as "X," who sought asylum in Canada on

the basis of fear of persecution related to their sexual orientation. X, who had come from a
country where individuals identifying as LGBTQ+ faced severe discrimination and violence,
testified about the threats and societal stigma they experienced due to their identity. The claim
highlighted the serious risks associated with returning to their home country, where laws and
prevailing societal attitudes rendered individuals like X vulnerable to persecution.
The IRB's initial decision failed to fully recognize the systemic discrimination faced by
LGBTQ+ individuals in the applicant's home country and did not adequately assess the
credibility of X's experiences. Upon review, it became evident that the Board overlooked critical
contextual factors regarding societal norms and the legal framework that criminalized
homosexual behavior, thereby putting X at significant risk of harm. As a result, the IRB was
instructed to reassess the case with a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges facing
LGBTQ+ individuals in asylum contexts. This case underscored the importance of careful
consideration of the circumstances surrounding claims based on sexual orientation and the need
for immigration authorities to remain sensitive to the realities of persecution faced by
marginalized groups.

Ma v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 101284 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Ma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 101284**, the Federal Court of
Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in the case of
Ma, a national from China who sought asylum in Canada on the grounds of persecution related
to his political beliefs and activism. Ma claimed that he faced significant risks due to his
involvement in pro-democracy activities and his outspoken views against the Chinese
government. He provided detailed testimony regarding the threats and harassment he
experienced, arguing that returning to China would expose him to severe consequences,
including imprisonment and violence.
The IRB ultimately rejected Ma's refugee claim, raising concerns about the credibility of his
testimony and the consistency of his account. The Board found that Ma had not adequately
established a well-founded fear of persecution. Upon judicial review, the Federal Court
determined that the IRB had erred in its evaluation of Ma's credibility and had not fully
considered the evidence of systemic persecution faced by political dissidents in China. The court
highlighted that the IRB had to take into account broader country conditions when assessing the
risks presented by individuals like Ma. Consequently, the Federal Court allowed Ma's appeal,
quashing the IRB’s decision and remanding the case for reconsideration. This case underscored
the importance of thorough and contextual analysis when assessing refugee claims, particularly
for those facing political persecution in their home countries.

Bhutta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 28045 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada

In **Bhutta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 28045**, the Federal Court
of Canada examined the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) regarding
Bhutta's application for refugee protection. Bhutta, a national from Pakistan, sought asylum in
Canada based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to his ethnic background and political
affiliations. He claimed that he faced significant threats from local authorities and extremist
groups in Pakistan, particularly due to his involvement in political activities and his family's
history in the opposition party. Despite presenting detailed testimony about the harassment and
violence he encountered, the IRB rejected his refugee claim, raising concerns about his
credibility and the substantiation of his fears.
The Federal Court found that the IRB had made critical errors in its assessment of Bhutta's case.
Specifically, the court noted that the Board had not adequately considered the broader context of
human rights abuses and political repression in Pakistan, particularly against individuals
associated with opposition parties. The court criticized the IRB for failing to properly evaluate
the significance of the threats described by Bhutta and for overlooking corroborating evidence
that supported his fear of persecution. As a result, the Federal Court allowed Bhutta's appeal,
quashed the IRB’s decision, and ordered a reconsideration of his refugee claim. This case
emphasized the necessity for immigration authorities to conduct thorough and contextually
informed evaluations of refugee applications, particularly in cases involving political dissent and
ethnic persecution.

Khaira v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 95529 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Khaira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 95529**, the Federal Court
of Canada reviewed the Immigration and Refugee Board's (IRB) decision regarding Khaira, a
national from India who sought asylum based on a fear of persecution due to his involvement
with the pro-Khalistani movement. Khaira claimed that he faced threats and violence from Indian
authorities and criminal gangs because of his political beliefs and activism promoting the rights
of Sikhs and the creation of a separate Sikh state. He presented detailed testimony about the
intimidation and harassment he encountered in India as a result of his political activities.
Nevertheless, the IRB rejected his refugee claim, citing credibility issues and a lack of consistent
evidence to support his assertions of persecution.
Upon judicial review, the Federal Court found that the IRB had made significant errors in its
assessment of Khaira's case. The court noted that the Board had not sufficiently considered the
context of political dissent and the treatment of activists in India, particularly those advocating
for Sikh rights. The court emphasized that the IRB failed to adequately analyze the risks faced by
individuals associated with the Khalistani movement, which is known to be met with repression
and hostility from Indian authorities. As a result, the Federal Court allowed Khaira's appeal,
quashing the IRB's decision and remanding the case for further evaluation. This ruling
highlighted the importance of a thorough and contextualized approach to examining refugee

claims, especially in cases involving political activism and possible persecution based on
ethnicity and religion.

Ahmad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 45644 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 45644**, the Federal Court
of Canada reviewed the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) regarding
Ahmad, a national from Pakistan who sought asylum on the grounds of persecution due to his
political beliefs and involvement with a pro-democracy group. Ahmad claimed that he had faced
threats, harassment, and violence from government authorities because of his activism against
the Pakistani regime. He provided detailed accounts of incidents where he was targeted for his
political activities, arguing that he would face severe repercussions if returned to Pakistan.
The IRB ultimately rejected Ahmad's refugee claim, questioning the consistency of his evidence
and expressing doubts about his credibility. Upon review, the Federal Court found that the IRB
had failed to adequately consider the broader context of political dissent and the risks faced by
activists in Pakistan. The court emphasized that the Board overlooked significant country
conditions that indicated systemic repression against political opponents. As a result, the Federal
Court allowed Ahmad's appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and remanding the case for
reconsideration. This ruling underscored the necessity for immigration authorities to conduct
thorough and contextual analyses in refugee cases, particularly when they involve claims of
persecution based on political beliefs and activism.

Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 81848 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In **Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 81848**, the Federal Court of
Canada reviewed the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) concerning the
refugee claim of Singh, a national from India who sought asylum on the basis of a well-founded
fear of persecution due to his involvement with the Sikh separatist movement. Singh testified
that he had faced threats and violence from Indian authorities and extremist groups as a result of
his political beliefs and activities advocating for the rights of Sikhs. Despite his detailed accounts
of harassment and a credible fear of persecution, the IRB denied his claim, raising concerns
about the inconsistencies and gaps in his story.
Upon judicial review, the Federal Court found that the IRB had erred in its assessment of Singh's
claim, particularly concerning its credibility determinations. The court noted that the Board had
failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of human rights abuses and the historical context
of persecution faced by Sikhs involved in political activism in India. The Federal Court
emphasized the importance of considering broader country conditions and social dynamics when
evaluating claims of political persecution. Ultimately, the court allowed Singh's appeal, quashing

the IRB's decision and remanding the case for reconsideration. This case highlighted the
necessity for thorough, contextually informed evaluations of refugee claims, particularly for
individuals at risk due to political or ethnic identity.

X (Re), 2018 CanLII 48754 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In **X (Re), 2018 CanLII 48754**, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) reviewed the
case of an unnamed applicant, designated as "X," who sought refugee protection in Canada due
to a well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. X, originally from a country
where homosexuality is criminalized and leads to severe social stigma, provided testimony
detailing a pattern of threats, harassment, and violence faced as a result of their sexual identity. X
claimed that these dangers were exacerbated by societal attitudes that are hostile toward
LGBTQ+ individuals, creating an environment where their safety would be at grave risk if
returned.
The IRB ultimately rejected X's claim for refugee status, citing doubts about the credibility of
their testimony and inconsistent details in the account presented. The Board's conclusion was
based on a perceived lack of sufficient corroborating evidence to substantiate X’s fears of
persecution. Following this decision, X appealed to the Federal Court, which found that the IRB
had erred in its assessment. The court emphasized the necessity for the IRB to consider the
broader context of systemic discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in X's home country.
As a result, the Federal Court allowed the appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and directing a
reconsideration of X's claim. This case highlighted the critical importance of addressing the
unique vulnerabilities of marginalized groups in the refugee determination process and ensuring
that their claims are evaluated with full awareness of the prevailing risks they face in their
countries of origin.

Aujla v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 90011 (CA IRB),
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In **Aujla v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 90011**, the
Federal Court of Canada reviewed the case involving Aujla, a Canadian citizen of Indian origin,
who was subject to a removal order based on national security concerns linked to allegations of
his involvement in Sikh separatist activities. The case arose when the Canadian government
deemed Aujla a security threat, arguing that his affiliations and past participation in pro-
Khalistani activities posed risks to public safety. In response, Aujla contested the removal order
and sought judicial review, claiming that the evidence against him was insufficient and that the
government's decision was based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Upon review, the Federal Court found that the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) had erred
in its findings. The court emphasized that the IRB failed to adequately assess the credibility and
reliability of the evidence presented against Aujla, particularly regarding the sources and context

of the information used to justify the removal order. The Federal Court highlighted the necessity
of a thorough evaluation in cases involving national security, recognizing the impact of such
decisions on individuals' rights and freedoms. As a result, the court allowed Aujla's appeal,
quashing the IRB's decision and remanding the case for reconsideration. This ruling underscored
the balance that must be struck between national security interests and individual rights, stressing
the importance of a fair and rigorous process in determining the legitimacy of security-related
actions taken by the government.

De Leon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 77287 (CA IRB), Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada
In **De Leon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 77287**, the Federal
Court of Canada examined the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
regarding the refugee claim of De Leon, a national from the Philippines. De Leon sought asylum
in Canada, citing a well-founded fear of persecution due to his political opinions and activism
against the Philippine government’s policies, particularly those related to human rights abuses.
He detailed instances of threats and harassment he faced as a result of his outspoken views,
which he argued put his life at risk if he returned to the Philippines.
The IRB ultimately rejected De Leon's claim, raising concerns about his credibility and the
consistency of his testimony. It pointed to perceived gaps in his account and the lack of
supporting evidence to substantiate his fear of persecution. However, upon reviewing the case,
the Federal Court found that the IRB had made significant errors in its assessment, particularly in
failing to properly consider the broader context of human rights violations and the risks faced by
political activists in the Philippines. The court emphasized the need for the IRB to take into
account the systemic patterns of repression against dissenters in evaluating De Leon's claim. As a
result, the Federal Court allowed De Leon's appeal, quashing the IRB's decision and remanding
the case for reconsideration. This case underscored the importance of a thorough and contextual
understanding of the risks faced by individuals due to their political beliefs and activism.

X (Re), 2013 CanLII 61014 (CA IRB), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In **X (Re), 2013 CanLII 61014**, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) evaluated the
case of an unnamed asylum seeker, referred to as "X," who applied for refugee protection in
Canada on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution related to his sexual orientation. X,
a national from a country where LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination and violence, provided
testimonies detailing experiences of harassment, threats, and physical violence due to his sexual
identity. He argued that returning to his home country would subject him to severe risks
including violence, discrimination, and potential death.
The IRB ultimately denied X's refugee claim, questioning his credibility and suggesting
inconsistencies in his narrative. The Board raised doubts about the seriousness of the threats he

faced, as well as the overall context of LGBTQ+ rights within X's home country. Following the
IRB's decision, X sought judicial review, contending that the Board had failed to appropriately
consider the systemic risks faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in his country and did not adequately
assess the credibility of his experiences in light of broader societal conditions.
Upon review, the Federal Court found that the IRB had indeed erred in its assessment. The court
highlighted the necessity for decision-makers to take into account the risk of persecution faced
by LGBTQ+ individuals in contexts where societal norms are hostile to such identities. It ruled
in favor of X, allowing the appeal and remanding the case for reconsideration. This case
emphasized the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the unique challenges and
dangers faced by marginalized groups seeking asylum due to their sexual orientation.

Khela v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 74722 (CA IRB), Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of Khela v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 74722 (CA IRB), the
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) dealt with an application for refugee protection by Kamal
Khela, who claimed that he faced persecution in his home country due to his political beliefs and
activities. Khela argued that he had been involved in opposition to the prevailing regime, which
had led to threats and violence against him. The IRB had to evaluate Khela's credibility and the
circumstances surrounding his claims to determine whether he met the criteria for refugee status
under Canadian law.
The Board ultimately dismissed Khela's application, citing inconsistencies in his testimony and
insufficient evidence to corroborate his fear of persecution. The decision emphasized the
importance of credible and consistent accounts in refugee claims, and it raised questions about
the applicant’s ability to substantiate his claims. Khela's appeal to the Federal Court was
grounded in alleged procedural unfairness and misinterpretation by the Board. However, the
court upheld the IRB's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in evaluating evidence and
making determinations regarding the credibility of claims presented before it. This case
underscored the complexity and challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum based on
political persecution.

### Gritsan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 CanLII 56726 (CA IRB)
In **Gritsan v. Canada**, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) reviewed the refugee claim
of Evgene Gritsan, a Russian citizen alleging persecution based on his political affiliations and
opposition activities. Gritsan argued that upon returning to Russia, he would face threats and
potential violence due to his outspoken political beliefs and involvement in a dissident group.
During the hearings, the IRB scrutinized his testimony for consistency and credibility, along with
any corroborative evidence supporting his claims.

The IRB ultimately rejected Gritsan’s application, citing discrepancies in his statements and a
lack of concrete evidence demonstrating a real and immediate threat to his safety in Russia. The
Board acknowledged the general context of political repression in the country but maintained
that Gritsan had not sufficiently proven a well-founded fear of persecution. Gritsan subsequently
appealed to the Federal Court, arguing procedural unfairness and errors in the IRB's findings, but
the court upheld the IRB's decision, highlighting the Board's evaluative discretion in assessing
credibility and evidence.

### Sahranavard v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 43736 (CA IRB)
In the case of **Sahranavard v. Canada**, the IRB considered the refugee claim of Asghar
Sahranavard, an Iranian national who asserted that he faced persecution upon returning to Iran
due to his religious beliefs and political activities against the government. Sahranavard presented
evidence of past arrests and harassment, arguing that these incidents were indicative of a broader
pattern of persecution based on his beliefs. The Board carefully examined his claims and the
context of religious freedom in Iran.
The IRB ultimately dismissed Sahranavard's application, concluding that he had not sufficiently
demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution. The Board found inconsistencies in his
testimony and noted a lack of corroborative evidence to support his claims of persecution.
Disappointed with the outcome, Sahranavard filed for judicial review, stating that the IRB had
failed to adequately consider the severity of the risks he faced in Iran due to his beliefs.
However, the Federal Court affirmed the IRB's decision, underscoring the Board's mandate to
weigh evidence and assess credibility in making its determinations.

### X (Re), 2019 CanLII 113798 (CA IRB)
In **X (Re)**, the Immigration and Refugee Board reviewed a refugee claim by an applicant
from an unspecified country, who alleged threats of persecution due to their sexual orientation.
The claimant presented evidence detailing harassment and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals
in their home country, arguing these factors contributed to a reasonable fear of persecution if
returned home. The IRB was tasked with considering both the individual's testimony and current
country conditions regarding LGBTQ+ rights.
The Board ultimately granted the application, acknowledging that the evidence presented
provided a credible account of systemic discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ persons in
the claimant's country. The IRB recognized that the applicant's fear of persecution was well-
founded, given the societal and legal context they faced. The decision highlighted the importance

of consideration for vulnerable groups in asylum claims, demonstrating the IRB's role in
safeguarding individuals who may be at risk due to their identity.

### T.O.T. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 88024 (CA IRB)
In **T.O.T. v. Canada**, the IRB evaluated the refugee claim of a Tamil asylum seeker from Sri
Lanka, who asserted that they faced persecution due to their political activities. The applicant
detailed experiences of threats and violence linked to their involvement with a pro-Tamil
organization, particularly during periods of heightened conflict in Sri Lanka. As the hearing
unfolded, the IRB analyzed evidence regarding the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka and assessed
the credibility of T.O.T.'s narrative.
The IRB ultimately dismissed the refugee claim, finding inconsistencies in the applicant's
testimony and a lack of compelling evidence to corroborate the assertions of persecution. The
Board noted that while there was a documented history of hostility towards Tamils, the
individual did not convincingly demonstrate a personal risk of persecution based on their
situation. T.O.T. sought judicial review, arguing that the IRB had failed to appreciate the
systemic risks presented. However, the Federal Court upheld the IRB's decision, underscoring
the Board's authority and responsibility in evaluating claims and evidence.

### Sheng v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 57518 (CA
IRB)
In **Sheng v. Canada**, the IRB examined the case of a Chinese national claiming refugee
status based on past government persecution linked to their political activity. Sheng argued that
they faced severe consequences in China for participating in pro-democracy demonstrations and
promoting free speech. The applicant submitted various documents to substantiate their claims,
asserting that the Chinese government's surveillance and oppressive practices posed a continuous
threat.
The IRB ultimately ruled against Sheng's refugee claim, citing inadequate evidence and
inconsistencies within their testimony. While recognizing the general risks faced by dissidents in
China, the Board found that Sheng did not sufficiently demonstrate a personal credible fear of
persecution that warranted refugee protection. In response, Sheng filed for judicial review,
contending that the Board had not thoroughly evaluated the evidence regarding their situation.
Nonetheless, the Federal Court upheld the IRB's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in
assessing claims and credibility.

### X (Re), 2017 CanLII 142605 (CA IRB)
In the case of **X (Re)**, the IRB considered a refugee application from a woman claiming
persecution in her home country based on her gender and familial background. The claimant
presented evidence highlighting systemic gender-based violence and discrimination, arguing that
her family connections would further expose her to risks. The IRB explored both the applicant's
personal history and the broader socio-political climate affecting women in her home country.
The Board ultimately granted the application for refugee protection, concluding that the evidence
demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution based on gender. The IRB underscored the
importance of acknowledging gender-related persecution as a valid basis for refugee claims,
reflecting the evolving understanding of asylum protections in relation to vulnerable populations.
This decision emphasized the Board's commitment to examining claims with a nuanced
understanding of gender dynamics and their potential effects on individual safety.

### Lefter v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 10743 (CA IRB)
In **Lefter v. Canada**, the IRB reviewed the refugee claim of a Romanian national who sought
asylum in Canada based on allegations of persecution due to his sexual orientation. He detailed
experiences of harassment and threats in Romania, citing a violent incident that heightened his
fear of returning home. The IRB conducted a thorough analysis of the applicant's claims,
supported by evidence illuminating the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in Romania.
The Board ultimately denied Lefter's application for refugee status, citing inconsistencies in his
testimony and a lack of substantiating evidence regarding his claims of persecution due to sexual
orientation. The IRB noted that while discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in Romania
was acknowledged, the applicant had not convincingly demonstrated a direct threat to his safety.
Lefter responded by seeking judicial review of the IRB's decision, contesting the evaluation of
credibility and the consideration of evidence. However, the Federal Court upheld the IRB's
findings, reiterating the importance of credibility in refugee determinations.

### Raheja v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 36612 (CA IRB)
In **Raheja v. Canada**, the IRB addressed the refugee claim of an Indian national seeking
protection due to alleged persecution from local authorities related to their participation in
political protests against government policies. Raheja presented evidence detailing prior arrests
and mistreatment by police, asserting that a return to India would subject them to further harm
based on their political activism. The IRB carefully considered the political context and the
personal history of the applicant during the hearings.

Ultimately, the Board denied Raheja's claim, finding that while the situation in India posed
inherent risks for political dissidents, the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to
establish a well-founded fear of persecution specific to their circumstances. The IRB highlighted
discrepancies in recollections of events and lack of corroborative documentation. Following the
denial, Raheja sought judicial review, challenging the IRB's decision on credibility assessments,
but the Federal Court upheld the Board's ruling, affirming its discretionary authority in
evaluating refugee claims.

### Far v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 CanLII 90984 (CA IRB)
In **Far v. Canada**, the IRB heard the case of a Syrian national who sought refugee status
based on fears of persecution due to their political beliefs in a war-torn environment. Far claimed
that their opposition to the Assad regime led to threats against their life and safety, particularly as
the conflict escalated. The IRB analyzed the socio-political context of Syria, as well as the
personal impacts on Far arising from ongoing violence and oppression.
The IRB ultimately granted Far's application for refugee protection, recognizing the credible fear
of persecution based on the applicant's political stance. The Board concluded that the evidence of
systemic violence and active repression against dissenters in Syria substantiated the claim. This
decision highlighted the IRB's sensitivity to the dynamic and dangerous situations faced by
individuals fleeing from conflict zones, emphasizing the need for timely protection in cases of
credible persecution.

### X (Re), 2013 CanLII 88254 (CA IRB)
In **X (Re)**, the IRB evaluated a refugee claim from an unnamed individual alleging
persecution due to their ethnic background in a conflict-prone nation. The applicant provided
accounts of violence and discrimination directed at their community, asserting that returning to
their home country would place them at significant risk. The IRB was tasked with determining
both the credibility of the applicant's narrative and the current conditions impacting ethnic
minorities in the said nation.
The Board ultimately granted the claim, recognizing the systemic discrimination and violence
faced by the applicant's ethnic group. The decision underscored the importance of contextual
evaluations in refugee claims, particularly concerning the state of human rights and societal
attitudes towards minority communities. The Board's ruling reflected a commitment to protecting
individuals who could credibly demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on their
ethnic identity.

​