I am reviewing a publication by Legal Services, Immigration and Refugee Board entitled "Assessment of Credibility in Claims for Refugee Protection".
One reference seems to indicate that it would be an error of law for the Board to rely on selective evidence:
In Polgari, Imre v.M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-502-00), Hansen, June 8, 2001, 2001 FCT 626, the Court faulted the CRDD for "the absence of any analysis of the extensive documentation...coupled with the failure to adequately address the contradictory documents and explain its preference for the evidence on which it relied." In Orgona, Eva v.M.C.I.(F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4517-99), MacKay, April 18, 2001, 2001 FCT 346, the Court faulted the CRDDbecause "it made no reference to the significant documentary evidence which was supportive of the... claims. ...when evidence which supports the [claimants'] position is not referred to, and when other documentary evidence is selectively relied upon, the tribunal, in my opinion, errs in law by ignoring relevant evidence.
Another reference indicates the limited value of noting the failure of a claimant to refer to his/her fear in an application for a visitor visa to enter Canada:
In Fajardo, Mercedes v.M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-1238-91), Mahoney, Robertson, McDonald, September 15, 1993, Reported: Fajardo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 21 Imm. L.R. (2d) 113 (F.C.A.), the Court commented that only the most naive applicant for a visitor's visa would indicate to the visa officer that her purpose for going to Canada was not to visit but to seek asylum. See also Leitch, Roger Rodney v.M.C.I.(F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2910-94), Gibson, February 6, 1995; Quinteros, Carolina Elizabeth Lovato v.M.C.I.(F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4030-97), Campbell, September 22, 1998; Bhatia, Varinder Pal Singh v.M.C.I.(F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4959-01), Layden-Stevenson, November 25, 2002, 2002 FCT 2010. In Dhillon, Lakhwinder Singh v.M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-120-01), McKeown, November 2, 2001, 2001 FCT 1194, the Court stated that it is questionable whether the claimant has any onus to refer to a previous immigration application under question 37 (narrative) of the PIF.