Federal Court

Immigration and Citizenship

Refugee Protection


Reliance on Wikipedia evidence cause for concern but error of no consequence

Applicants, husband, wife and daughter, were citizens of Peru who claimed protection on basis that they had been assaulted and threatened by former police officer in Peru. Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissed claim finding applicants lacked credibility, and that wife and daughter were entitled to acquire citizenship in Argentina. Applicants applied for judicial review. Application granted in part. It was unreasonable for RPD to conclude that all of applicants' evidence was discredited as result of single contradiction related to one element of narrative. It was open to RPD to reach negative credibility finding as result of inconsistency related to timing of decision to leave Peru, but it was not reasonable to rely on inconsistency to discount remainder of narrative. RPD reasonably concluded that wife and daughter were entitled to obtain Argentine citizenship by complying with mere formalities, and that finding was determinative of claim of wife and daughter. While reliance on Wikipedia evidence had been found to be cause for concern, error was of no consequence because there was other documentary evidence before RPD that established process for obtaining citizenship. In circumstances, it was not unreasonable for RPD to conclude that wife's efforts were insufficient to demonstrate that it was not within her power to obtain citizenship in Argentina. It was reasonable for RPD to conclude that Argentine citizenship would be available to daughter based on wife's ability to obtain citizenship. Matter was returned for redetermination respecting only husband's claim for protection.
Esquivel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 1305, 2017 FC 290, Patrick Gleeson J. (F.C.).


cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?