Most refugee claims are not refused because the member disbelieved the country conditions. They are refused because the member did not believe the claimant. Credibility appears in the majority of negative RPD decisions, and it is the finding that is hardest to overturn on appeal, because the member saw and heard the claimant and the RAD did not.
Understanding how credibility is assessed, before the hearing, is the most useful preparation a claimant can do.
The starting point: You are presumed to be telling the truth
Canadian refugee law begins from a presumption that a claimant’s sworn testimony is true. The member cannot reject your account simply because it is uncorroborated or because it seems unusual. To make a negative credibility finding, the member must have reasons, and those reasons must be stated clearly in the decision.
This presumption is real, but it is also rebuttable. What rebuts it is the subject of the rest of this post.
Inconsistencies
The most common basis for a negative finding is a contradiction between different accounts of the same events. The member compares:
- your Basis of Claim form;
- your testimony at the hearing;
- your port of entry or eligibility interview notes;
- your documents;
- any prior statements, such as a visa application or an interview abroad.
A discrepancy about a date, a name, the order of events, or who was present will be put to you at the hearing, and you will be asked to explain it. The explanation matters. Members accept that memory is imperfect and that trauma affects recall. They are less accepting of an explanation that is itself inconsistent, or of a pattern of discrepancies that all point in the same direction.
Omissions
Something that appears in testimony but not in the Basis of Claim form is treated with suspicion, particularly if it is central to the claim. The form asks for all the significant events. If a serious incident is mentioned for the first time at the hearing, the member will ask why it was left out. Being told by a former representative to keep it short is an explanation members hear often, and it carries limited weight.
The form can be amended before the hearing. If you realise something important is missing, amending it in advance is far better than raising it for the first time in testimony.
Plausibility
A member may find that an account, while internally consistent, is implausible: that events as described could not reasonably have happened. Plausibility findings are supposed to be made cautiously and only in the clearest cases, with reference to the country evidence rather than the member’s own assumptions. In practice they are made regularly. The answer to them is documentary evidence of how things actually work in your country: how police respond, how organisations operate, how people travel.
Documents
Documents corroborate testimony, but they are also tested for credibility themselves. A member may give a document little weight because it is a photocopy, because it lacks security features, because the source cannot be verified, or because fraudulent documents of that type are known to be common in the country. A document that contradicts your testimony can do more harm than no document at all.
Where a key document cannot be obtained, the member expects an explanation of the efforts made to get it.
Behaviour
The member may also consider what you did, and whether it fits the fear you describe. Three patterns attract particular scrutiny:
- Delay in claiming. Waiting months after arrival to make a claim, without a reason, suggests the fear was not pressing.
- Failure to claim elsewhere. Passing through countries where you could have sought protection and choosing not to.
- Reavailment. Returning to the country you fear, or renewing that country’s passport, after leaving it.
None of these is decisive on its own. Each needs to be explained, and the explanation is better given before the member asks.
Demeanour
Members are cautioned against relying on how a claimant looks or sounds when testifying, because demeanour is an unreliable guide across cultures and in the presence of trauma. It still appears in decisions. A claimant who answers the question asked, does not guess, and says when they do not remember will generally be on safer ground than one who elaborates or speculates.
What this means for preparation
Read your Basis of Claim form again before the hearing. Know your own timeline. Review the documents you have filed and be ready to explain where each one came from. Be prepared to explain any delay, any travel, and any gap. Where an inconsistency exists in the record, know about it before the member raises it, and have the honest explanation ready.
For the mistakes that most often lead to refusal, see our post on common mistakes in refugee claims, and for what follows a refusal, see what happens if the RPD refuses your claim.
If you have an RPD hearing coming up, book a consultation with Kabir & Alam Lawyers. Our refugee law practice prepares claimants for the hearing and represents them before the Board.