Resettlement: Assessing credibility

(REF-OVS-4-10)

This section contains policy, procedures and guidance used by IRCC staff. It is posted on the department’s website as a courtesy to stakeholders.

Key messages: These program delivery instructions (PDIs) provide guidance on how to assess credibility during the application process.

On this page

Reviewing an application

Officers should research what is known about the country conditions and laws in the applicant’s country of origin, and the experiences of persons in similar situations in that country. Details of the applicant’s refugee narrative must be considered and reviewed in the application, including the Registered Refugee Form (RRF) or Schedule 2.

Identify any inconsistencies in the narrative, for example: gaps in timelines, discrepancies in information provided or inconsistencies with previous applications or associated files.

Presumption of truthfulness

The Federal Court of Appeal has stated that when an applicant makes a statement that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their truthfulness. The strength of the presumption varies according to the circumstances of each individual case. For example, it is not a presumption that everything the applicant believes, but has no direct knowledge of, is actually true.

Standard of proof vs. legal test

Findings of fact, as well as determinations as to whether the applicant’s evidence is credible, are made on a balance of probabilities that is greater than 50% or more likely than not. Applicants rarely present documentary evidence in support of a claim of persecution. Officers will have to rely on their judgment and knowledge to determine whether a narrative is credible.

The legal test to establish the risk of persecution under section A96 (for example, whether there is a “well-founded fear”), is “reasonable chance,” that is, less than 50% or a serious possibility. This threshold is higher than “mere possibility.”

In other words, the Convention refugee applicant must establish the facts underlying their claim of persecution on a balance of probabilities, but need only show that there is a reasonable chance that they would face persecution in the future.

Credibility findings – Eligibility

A person fleeing from persecution or conflict will frequently be without personal documents. Country condition research may not always be found to corroborate statements.

In such situations, it might be considered an error to make a negative credibility finding only on the basis of the absence of corroborating evidence. The applicant should be found credible as long as all available evidence has been considered and the officer is satisfied as to the applicant’s general credibility. The applicant’s statements must be coherent, plausible and not run counter to generally known facts. Credibility findings based on inconsistencies may arise through either inconsistency within the applicant’s declarations or inconsistency with other evidence that is accepted.

In most cases, the credibility findings should affect the central aspect of refugee’s eligibility and not be based on microscopic examinations of irrelevant or peripheral issues. Regardless, applicants must still be assessed on the basis of the evidence that was found to be true, including documentation relevant to the applicant’s situation and evidence regarding persons in a similar situation.

While the burden of proof rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the officer. When assessing the credibility of an applicant, it is important to remember that all of the evidence, both oral and documentary, must be considered and assessed, including all evidence that is contrary to conclusions.

General lack of credibility

A finding of a general lack of credibility may be made when the contradictory or implausible evidence casts serious doubt on the totality of relevant statements. The discrepancies must be significant and concern matters that are material to the requirements. Once the applicant is provided an opportunity to address concerns and fails to provide reasonable explanations for the discrepancies, an officer may find a general lack of credibility.

Minor inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence should not lead to a finding of a general lack of credibility where other acceptable evidence supports the applicant’s narrative.

In the presence of minor inconsistencies, officers must also consider whether the incidents described in the narrative, taken together, rise to the level of persecution in the case of a Convention refugee or, as per section R147, amount to being seriously and personally affected by civil war, armed conflict or a massive violation of human rights in the case of members of the country of asylum class.

Example: A refugee applicant claimed they were being persecuted for their faith. In their narrative, they described various incidents. In one instance, the family home was broken into at midnight by alleged agents of persecution over 7 years ago. In another instance, the applicant was beaten and their family threatened, forced into a bathroom and robbed at gunpoint by armed intruders. The applicant also provided other incidents of alleged persecution.

Depending on the circumstances, it could be unreasonable to expect the applicant would remember each detail of the incidents exactly, given the time passed. Concerns such as whether the bathroom door was locked and whether they searched for their phones together could be insufficient to cast doubt on the entire assertion that the applicants were targeted for their faith. It might be considered an overly microscopic view of the facts; especially when there is other corroborating evidence or other major incidents of alleged persecution that were not considered.

See also:Avoid relying on demeanour as the only measure of credibility.

Credibility findings that may be found unreasonable by the Federal Court (not exhaustive):

  • those that rely on insignificant inconsistencies or omissions, such as not remembering specific dates
  • those that unreasonably discount valid explanations
  • those that do not consider relevant information
  • those that ignore available corroborative evidence

Situations where credibility findings are clear and upheld by the Federal Court (not exhaustive):

  • activities that suggest that the applicant acted without subjective fear where no satisfactory explanation is provided
  • applicant’s lacking in sufficient knowledge or detail reasonably expected of a person in their particular circumstances (for example, if in military service, about their role/responsibilities or relevant training)
  • evidence that undermines the applicant’s identity
  • an omission or contradiction of a significant fact from an applicant’s application (for example, unexplained discrepancies between testimony at interview and application forms)

See also Examples (not exhaustive).

Implausibility findings

A statement can be implausible when the facts presented are outside of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence clearly demonstrates that the events could not have happened as claimed by the applicant.

Adverse plausibility findings should be limited to situations where the facts clearly support an inference that the applicant was not truthful in their statement, such that it would be highly unlikely that a reasonable person would agree with the conclusion. Plausibility findings require that the officer provide a clear explanation for how they arrived at these findings in the case notes.

There is a difference between a reasonable inference and a mere guess. An inference is a clear deduction from the evidence (for example, reliable country of origin information). If extrinsic information is used to question or refute the narrative, the source and details should be provided to the applicant to give them an opportunity to address these concerns.

In a series of judgements, the Federal Court made it clear that if the applicant presents documentary evidence, this evidence must be reviewed to measure the plausibility of the applicant’s narrative against what is known about the country conditions. In addition, while doing this examination, officers must be careful not to judge actions which appear implausible from Canadian standards (see Ghirmatsion v. Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 519). Such actions might be plausible when considered within the applicant’s background.

Example: The applicant declared a date they went into hiding at interview that was inconsistent with their application form. It was found inconsistent not because of what was actually written in the application, but based on the officer’s guess that events in the application form were set out in chronological order. This is the basis of an inferred date and could be considered speculative.

Specific credibility concerns must be addressed with the applicant

Applicants must be provided an opportunity to respond to concerns about inconsistencies found in their narrative at interview using open-ended and probing questioning or by sending a procedural fairness letter if no interview is conducted. Moreover, any explanation provided by the applicant must be considered by the officer to determine whether it is reasonable to explain the inconsistency. Officers are to raise any unresolved inconsistency or concerns regarding an explanation with the applicant.

See also: Resettlement from overseas: Conducting interviews and Procedural fairness.

Avoid relying on demeanour as the only measure of credibility

The demeanour of the applicant, including conduct, attitude or behaviour during an interview, is often an unreliable measure of credibility.

The officer may take note when there is a significant change in the demeanour of the applicant. This could include mention of nervousness, hesitations, incoherence or vagueness in the elaboration of the applicant’s narrative, but it is preferable that there be other objective facts to support adverse credibility findings.

When confronted with vague, evasive or unresponsive answers to direct questions, the officer should repeat or rephrase to clarify them while avoiding prompting.

When assessing credibility, the officer should consider the effect that the following factors may have on the applicant (non-exhaustive), such as

  • the passage of time from events being narrated
  • initial signs of nervousness
  • a disability or a psychological or medical condition
  • the presence of other family members, especially children
  • trauma resulting from their past persecution, detention, torture or escape
  • the applicant’s age, gender or identity
  • the applicant’s educational background or cultural factors
  • other vulnerable circumstances (for example, women at risk, single-women head of family or persecution based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression (SOGIE))

Past trauma may affect the person’s memory or ability to be interviewed. Officers should be aware that sharing a traumatic experience in an interview with a stranger in a position of authority may be intimidating. Emotional reactions to recounting traumatic experiences are unique to the individual, therefore officers should not expect an applicant to behave a certain way when speaking about such experiences. For example, an applicant might recount traumatic events with little or no emotion.

An allegation of past trauma does not rule out making a negative credibility finding. For example, the issue may not be related to an inability to recall or articulate details, but rather significant inconsistencies between statements at interview and the application forms.

See also: Resettlement: Cases for priority or special processing and Addressing cases where a person has experienced abuse.

Assessing whether the applicant is part of a persecuted faith community or political group

The officer must be cautious when making negative credibility findings on the basis of an unreasonably high standard of knowledge, particularly when it comes to religion or politics. The applicant’s responses may vary depending on the individual’s religious practice and instruction or their level of political involvement.

For example, an officer may question applicants to assess their beliefs, but such questioning and resulting analysis must focus on the genuineness of those beliefs and not whether they are theologically correct or in alignment with the majority view of their religion.

An officer may conclude that an applicant demonstrates a lack of genuinely held belief based on their failure to provide answers or answers with sufficient detail, but not based on an assessment of the correctness of the applicant’s answers.

In addition, officers should take into account that some applicants may not be directly participating or have knowledge of the group themselves. For example, some religious and ethnic groups overlap and an individual may be persecuted on the perception that they are part of a faith community, even if they do not practice. In addition, they could be presumed by agents of persecution to be associated to a group because they are advocates or related to a prominent figure within the group.

Evidence found to be self-serving

The Federal Court has repeatedly held that the rejection of evidence from an applicant or their family on the sole basis that this evidence is self‑serving can be an error. The officer must assess the reliability of the evidence based on, for example, whether it is provided by a direct witness who speaks independently from their vantage point or whether there are inconsistencies with other evidence provided. Other corroborative evidence can include country condition documentation.

Use of social media

Generally, it is reasonably expected that officers rely on open-sourced materials when rendering decisions. This may include social media content. In such cases, the reliability of social media posts should be assessed.

When social media posts undermine credibility, the officer should confirm that the account is known to the applicant. The applicant should be shown the posts or provided with links and the opportunity to respond to specific concerns.

Subsection A11(1)/A16(1) assessments

Subsection A16(1) obliges an applicant to be truthful about relevant aspects of their application, including background information and establishing their identity. The officer must be satisfied that the refugee applicant is not inadmissible and meets all requirements as per subsection A11(1) and paragraph R139(1)(i).

An officer can rely on subsection A11(1) and paragraph R139(1)(i) in combination with subsection A16(1) to refuse an application on the basis of untruthful statements surrounding an applicant’s background information or identity.

The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence for the officer to be satisfied that they are not inadmissible and meet all requirements of the Act and Regulations. The failure of an applicant to provide complete and truthful background information impedes the officer from establishing that the applicant is “not inadmissible” as per subsection A11(1) and paragraph R139(1)(i).

In such circumstances, officers are not required to conduct independent risk assessments regarding country conditions where an applicant failed to provide truthful evidence on their identity or background information.

Example: The applicant first sought permanent residence in Canada years ago by making an application that was refused. The applicant returned to their country of origin but years later, they re-entered their country of asylum and submitted another application for permanent residence under a different name. After being alerted regarding the alias, the officer notes the discrepancies in the applicant’s declarations in these two applications regarding the applicant’s travel history and background information. The applicant confirms being untruthful.

Note: Section R22 exempts refugee applicants from paragraph A40(1)(a). Therefore refugee applicants abroad should not be refused citing misrepresentation. For more see: Resettlement: Admissibility.

Reasons

The grounds for a negative credibility finding must be stated clearly with specific reference to the evidence. This generally includes an obligation to provide examples of the basis for not accepting the applicant’s statements at interview (such as inconsistencies and implausibilities), and to explain how and why they affected the applicant’s credibility.

See also: Resettlement: Final decision.

Examples (not exhaustive)

An applicant fails to disclose that they previously applied or were refused a TRV to Canada

Alone, this is not relevant to refugee eligibility. It may signal that the applicant used an alias to flee persecution. Refugee applicants can apply for temporary visas or may use fraudulent documents when attempting to flee persecution or through a smuggler. Applicants might also be coached or advised by consultants not to disclose their previous TRV application; however, officers should be careful not to make assumptions on whether applicants are coached.

An applicant fails to disclose the existence of family members

The refugee applicant is required to disclose all family members, whether accompanying or not, as per section R140.1. In this situation, officers can further explore the reasons the applicant provides for non-disclosure. However, flexibility should be exercised if the refugee applicant was unaware of this requirement and the whereabouts of the family is unknown or the individual may be presumed deceased.

In privately sponsored refugee (PSR) applications, non-disclosure might affect the sponsor’s ability to meet required resettlement funds. Specific concerns should be directed to ROC-O for a possible sponsorship re-assessment and inclusion of the dependent. For more, see: Add a dependant – PSR applications.

An applicant includes a nephew in their application and lists this person as a son

This may be a genuine relationship in the applicant’s cultural context, rather than a credibility issue. The applicant may also be fearful of family separation for revealing the true relationship or of being penalized in some way. Alternatively, if warranted, the child may be considered in a de facto relationship with the applicant.

An applicant declares the incorrect age of a dependent child

In the refugee context, this may be a misunderstanding of the process or an indicator that documentation to support the age of a dependent is difficult to obtain. The guiding principle of family reunification would prevail in this situation and the officer should consider being flexible in facilitating the resettlement of the overage dependant. Keep in mind that the overage dependant may also be a refugee in their own right or meet the definition of a de facto dependent.

An applicant fails to disclose that they were previously issued a removal order in Canada

If the refugee applicant has been previously removed from Canada, an officer should assess the reasons for the removal and non-disclosure. For example, it may be unlikely that they have a credible refugee narrative if removed under another identity.

Related guidance

Decision making: Standard of review and process for making a reasonable decision

Page details

Date modified: