Federal court | Immigration and Citizenship
Refugee protection
Credibility
Refugee Protection Division’s treatment of evidence was unreasonable
Applicant N was Ukrainian citizen, who claimed that he faced persecution due to his bisexuality and relationship with another man. N was beaten by other men, causing him to leave for Canada to study in 2015. N returned to Ukraine to move in with his partner, but was again attacked when he tried to save his partner from being attacked. N returned to Canada, and later filed refugee claim. Refugee Protection Division (RPD) accepted likelihood of persecution based on sexual orientation, in Ukraine. However, RPD found N’s evidence lacking in credibility. RPD ruled that claim was manifestly unfounded. N applied for judicial review of RPD decision. Application granted. RPD made improper credibility findings, based on phone evidence which it used to determine that N’s relationship was not genuine. N clarified evidence when asked, but was not asked about details that could have further clarified matter for RPD. RPD made no finding as to authenticity of medical note, but determined that medical evidence was fraudulent. Proper consideration of this evidence could have changed outcome of application. N had reasonable explanation for amending his evidence, but this was not accepted by RPD. As whole, RPD’s treatment of evidence was unreasonable.
Nagornyak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 680, 2017 FC 215, Cecily Y. Strickland J. (F.C.).
Credibility
Refugee Protection Division’s treatment of evidence was unreasonable
Applicant N was Ukrainian citizen, who claimed that he faced persecution due to his bisexuality and relationship with another man. N was beaten by other men, causing him to leave for Canada to study in 2015. N returned to Ukraine to move in with his partner, but was again attacked when he tried to save his partner from being attacked. N returned to Canada, and later filed refugee claim. Refugee Protection Division (RPD) accepted likelihood of persecution based on sexual orientation, in Ukraine. However, RPD found N’s evidence lacking in credibility. RPD ruled that claim was manifestly unfounded. N applied for judicial review of RPD decision. Application granted. RPD made improper credibility findings, based on phone evidence which it used to determine that N’s relationship was not genuine. N clarified evidence when asked, but was not asked about details that could have further clarified matter for RPD. RPD made no finding as to authenticity of medical note, but determined that medical evidence was fraudulent. Proper consideration of this evidence could have changed outcome of application. N had reasonable explanation for amending his evidence, but this was not accepted by RPD. As whole, RPD’s treatment of evidence was unreasonable.
Nagornyak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 680, 2017 FC 215, Cecily Y. Strickland J. (F.C.).
