Category: Subjective Fear of Persecution

The Court set aside the decision rejecting a claim to refugee status. The tribunal accepted that the applicant was a Tamil from the north and was required to assess the claim against the objective evidence.

The tribunals finding on lack of subjective fear due to reavailment was unreasonable given that the Applicant was deported back to his country and therefore did not return voluntarily.

The Court set aside a decision rejecting a claim. The finding of lack of subjective fear was unreasonable given the lack of a credibility finding.

The Court set aside a decision rejecting a claim for refugee status. The Board denied natural justice by not disclosing a document it relied on to reject the claim. The Board erred in finding state protection when the state agents were the agents of persecution. Also the Board erred in finding no subjective fear given there was no credibility finding.

The Court set aside a decision that the Applicant had re availed and had no subjective fear Having made no credibility finding it was unreasonable to find no subjective fear. The tribunal also erred in finding the applicant re availed himself given the evidence of lack of intent to reavail

The Court applied the jurisprudence holding that a lack of subjective fear should only be made in the context of an adverse credibility finding citing "Shanmugarajah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 583, at paragraph 3 "it is almost always foolhardy for a Board in a refugee case, where there is no general issue is to credibility, to make the assertion that the claimants had no subjective element in their fear".

The Court set aside a decision rejecting a claim for refugee protection. The Court noted that a finding of a lack of subjective fear could only arise in the contgext of a negative credibility finding. The Court also found an apprehension of bias as a result of sexist comments on the part of the panel.