Hart A. Kaminker

The applicants, an interfaith married couple from Pakistan, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying their refugee claims based on credibility issues.

The Federal Court found the RAD's treatment of evidence—including adverse inferences about identity documents sent from Italy and the weight given to supporting affidavits—was reasonable.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness when the RAD identified a discrepancy in the applicants' own documents regarding the description of attackers' vehicles, holding this was not a "new issue" requiring an opportunity to respond.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of their refugee protection claims.

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) had made negative credibility findings due to material omissions in the principal applicant's original Basis of Claim compared to his testimony.

On appeal, the applicants argued the differences were immaterial and blamed stress and bad advice.

The RAD dismissed the appeal.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting that omissions in a claim form can properly impugn credibility and the RAD was not required to address documents not raised in the applicants' appeal.

Following the allowance of an application for judicial review, the Court issued a supplementary judgment on whether a question of general importance should be certified under s. 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent proposed any questions.

The Court concluded that no questions of general importance warranted certification and none were stated.