 
 
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September  18, 2018)  
Disponible en français   
 
Immigration and  Refugee  
Board of Canada  
Refugee Appeal Division   Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
Section d’appel des réfugiés  
 
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
 
Reasons and decision  Motifs et décision  
 
Person(s) who is(are) the 
subject of the appeal  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX  Personne(s) en cause  
   
Appeal considered / heard 
at  Toronto, ON  Appel instruit / entendu 
à 
   
Date of decision   December 14, 2018  Date de la décision   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the person(s) 
who is(are) the subject of 
the appeal  XXXXXXXXXXXX  
Barrister and Solicitor  Conseil(s) (de la/des)  
personne(s) en cause  
   
Designated representative  N/A  Représentant(e) 
XXXXXXXXXX)  
   
Counsel for the Minister  N/A  Conseil du ministre  
   
  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       2  
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
OVERVIEW  
[1] XXXXXXXXXXXXthe “principal Appellant ”), and her son XXXXXXXXXXXXthe “ associate  
Appellant”)  are citizens of Azerbaijan . The  Appellants claim that if they return to Azerbaijan 
they will be arrested and detained on false charges due to the principal Appellant’s journalism 
and having criticized the government in her online articles.  
[2] The Appellants appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their 
refugee claims. As a preliminary issue, the Appellants submit new evidence , but do not request  
an oral hearing. They argue that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment that the pr incipal 
Appellant was not a XXXX . In addition, they argue that notwithstanding her lack of credibility, 
the RPD failed to assess the principal Appellant’s residual risk profile for having been an on -
screen television host and because her articles appear on line with her name and picture.   
[3] I have rejected the Appellants’ new evidence . I also  find the Appellants are not credible 
in their allegations and that they have failed to establish  that they possess a forward -looking risk 
if they return to Azerbaijan . As a result,  I confirm the RPD ’s decision  that the Appellants are not 
Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. Their appeal is denied.  
SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW  
[4] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the Refugee Appeal Division (RA D) 
applies the standard of correctness. In assessing findings involving the credibility of oral 
testimony, I may defer if I find that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in the circumstances.1 
Reasons will be provided in my analysis if I find that the RPD h ad a meaningful advantage.  
                                                 
1 M.C.I.  v. XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX  (F.C.A., no. A-470 -14), Gauthier, Webb, XXXX, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93 , at paras. 
70 and 103.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       3  
 [5] The issues in this appeal are whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment and 
whether the Appellants possess a residual profile that places them at risk upon return to 
Azerbaijan.  
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL  
[6] In support of their  appe al, the Appellants propose one document  as new evidence:  
1) The Azeri Times , “More than 50 Azeris Deported From Germany Arrested at the 
Baku Airport”, 20 July 2018.2 
[7] New evidence will only be admitted where that evidence: (1) arose after the rejection of 
the claim by the RPD; (2) was not reasonably available; or (3) was reasonably available, but that 
the claimant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the 
evidence, at the time of the reje ction.3 If one of these conditions is met, the R efugee Appeal 
Division (RAD)  will then consider if the evidence is credible, relevant, and new.4  
The RAD finds the Azeri Times  article to be inadmissible as new evidence  
The Appellants ’ Argument on the Admis sibility of the New Evidence  
[8] The Appellants submit that they could not have provided the news article about their risk 
as failed asylum -seekers at the time of rejection because it only came to their attention when they 
met with their appeal counsel and sta rted preparing for their appeal to the RAD. As a result, it 
came to their attention on September 10, 2018 when they first met with their appellate counsel 
and it was not reasonably available to them prior to the rejection of their refugee claim. They 
argue  that the document is relevant because it indicates that the mere fact of having claimed 
refugee status in another country can lead to detention on return to Azerbaijan.  
                                                 
2 Exhibit P -2, Appellant’s Record, Azeri Times  Article,  at pp. 13 -14.  
3 Subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (IRPA) . 
4 M.C.I.  v. XXXXX, XXXXXXXXX  (F.C.A., no. A -512 -14), XXXXX, XXXXXXXX, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       4  
 The RAD’s Assessment on the Admissibility of  the New Evidence  
[9] I reject the Appellants ’ argument and find the Azeri Times  article is inadmissible as new 
evidence. The article clearly pre -dates the RPD ’s decision  and I do not accept the XXXXXXXXXX’ 
explanation for why they could not have provided the article at the time their claim was rejec ted. 
First, it is the XXXXXXXXXX’ burden to establish their claim and they have not indicated that they 
were unaware of the risk to them as failed asylum -seekers if they returned to Azerbaijan  at the 
time of rejection , and as such, they have not establishe d that they were unabl e to obtain 
supporting evidence of this fact prior to the RPD’s decision to support this alleged fear.  The 
principal Appellant also testified at her hearing that she continued to follow events in Azerbaijan 
since she left the country,  indicating that she could have obtained available online articles 
published prior to rejection. Furthermore, the Appellants were represented by competent counsel 
at the RPD and they make no allegations of inadequate representation at the RPD. As such, it 
would have been reasonable to expect that if the Appellants were afraid to return to Azerbaijan 
as failed asylum -seekers , they would have conducted the necessary research prior to rejection to 
support their alleged fear. For these reasons , I find the Appellants have not established that the 
Azeri Times  article was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been 
expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence, at the time of the rejection . 
Therefore, the st atutory requirements for new evidence are not satisfied and the online article is 
inadmissible. There is no discretion to admit evidence that does not meet the statutory 
requirements for new evidence.  
 
 
 
ANALYSIS  
The RAD finds the Appellants are not credib le in their allegations  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       5  
 The Legitimacy of the XXXX XXXX  
The Appellants’ Argument  
[10]  The  Appellants argue that the RPD’s findings about the legitimacy of the XXXX XXXX  
as a news agency were erroneous. First, the Appellant s submit that the research methodology 
conducted by the IRB in its research about the XXXX XXXX , is unclear. In particular, there is 
little information about how the author conducted the research, what language the research was 
conducted in, or if they contacted anyone in Azerbaijan in the Azer i language about the 
organization. It is unclear how the author of the IRB’s research determined: that XXXX XXXX  
was not referred to in any other sources, and that the articles posted to XXXX XXXX  were not 
posted on any other news outlets. Given this lack of information about the author’s  methodology , 
it was unreasonable for the RPD to place significant weight on the IRB’s research memorandum. 
If it was conducted using the English language in a Google search, it is understandable that the 
author was unable to find additional information about XXXX XXXX . 
[11]  In addition, the Appellants argue that the principal Appellant reasonably explained the 
discrepancy with respect to her 2016 start date with XXXX XXXX , and the research 
memorandum’s finding that the website w as launched in XXXX  2017. She stated that she 
commenced employment in 2016 and the website was operated under the name XXXX XXXX 
XXXX , but the site was forced to change its name due to hacking attacks. While her Basis of 
Claim ( BOC ) and Port of Entry ( POE ) forms did not reference XXXX XXXX XXXX , she 
explained that only XXXX  XXXX  was mentioned because it was the same news agency that was 
operating before as XXXX XXXX XXXX , so there was structural continuity. The Appellants 
submit that the letter from the editor of XXXX XXXX  corroborates her testimony that XXXX 
XXXX  operated as XXXX  until XXXX  2017. Although the RPD found it was unreasonable that 
the editor’s letter did not  mention the other names that it operated as since 2010, this is not 
relevant to the claim because she started working there in 2016. On the latter point, the 
Appellants argue that the RPD cannot make a negative credibility assessment based on what 
documen ts do not say, but for what they do say.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       6  
  The RAD’s Assessment  
[12]  I reject the Appellants ’ argument and find the RPD did not err. I dismiss the Appellants’ 
submissions with respect to the methodology used. The Research Directorate states in the memo 
how it co nducted its research. It was clear from the memorandum. The Research Directorate 
conducted a Google search and looked at the XXXX XXXX XXXX  website. Based on this 
research it noted that: the XXXX XXXX  does not appear to have a physical address, it was 
regi stered on XXXX XXXX , 2017, the latest article on the website is from XXXX  2013, the 
existence of print version of the articles from the website could not be determined, there were no 
references of the website found in other sources at the time of research,  and the articles posted on 
the website did not appear on any other website during the time of research. If the Appellants 
contested these conclusions, it was incumbent upon them to provide contrary documentary 
evidence , which they have provided and I asse ss below .  
[13]  While the Appellants provided a supporting letter from the purported editor of the XXXX  
XXXX  website, the letter does not adequately address any of the issues mentioned in the 
research memo. In the letter from XXXXXXXXX , the editor explained that from 2015 to XXXX  
2017 , the website was known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  allegedly  
became XXXX XXXX XXXX , as it was subject to several hacking attempts by government 
hackers  over the years. The letter also states that  two of XXXX XXXX  correspondents have 
been arrested and face false charges . For the following reasons, I find that the XXXX XXXX  is 
not a legitimate news agency.  
[14]  The RPD put to the principal Appellant why there is no mention in her BOC or in her 
Schedule A  Form that she worked for XXXX XXXX XXXX . In response, the principal 
Appellant stated that it was because when she started working, she started working at XXXX 
XXXX . The RPD asked when she started working there, and her testimony evolved to say she 
started  when it was XXXX , but later became XXXX XXXX . The RPD asked why she did not 
mention XXXX  on any of her forms, and she stated that it was because it is now known as 
XXXX XXXX  and she thought since it is now the XXXX XXXX , the RPD would recognize it in 
the investigation as XXXX XXXX , so that is why she put XXXX XXXX  on her forms. The 
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       7  
 RPD asked why her articles from 2016 would be published under the XXXX XXXX  if it was a 
different name, and the principal Appellant stated it is because they changed it, they ch anged the 
names, changed the logos to XXXX XXXX  after the hackers attacked the website.  
[15]  I do not accept the principal Appellant’s explanation for her failure to mention that she 
worked for XXXX XXXX XXXX  prior to XXXX  2017. Not only was her testimony evolving 
about who she worked for in 2016, she also testified that XXXX XXXX XXXX  was subject to a 
hackers attack in XXXX  2016. On the latter point, this is a significant omission from her BOC 
Form. The allegation that the  government was hacking media platforms, such as the one she 
worked for , is a significant detail that should have been in her BOC. It was not a mere 
elaborative detail. It would support her allegations that the Azerbaijani authorities have some 
interest in  the news agency she works for, and as a consequence, the content she publishes on the 
website. Furthermore, I do not accept her explanation that she thought the RPD would find 
information about XXXX  in its investigation. At the time she completed her BOC and Schedule 
A Form , there was no investigation of XXXX XXXX  planned. It was two months after the 
research memo that the principal Appellant provided supporting evidence of the legitimacy of 
XXXX XXXX . Based on the principal Appellant’s omission of the hac king of XXXX XXXX 
XXXX  and the challenges faced by reporters at XXXX XXXX , and her explanation for omitting  
any mention of XXXX XXXX XXXX  as an employer, I draw a negative inference regarding the 
legitimacy of the XXXX XXXX  as a news organization.  
[16]  Moreover , as mentioned by the RPD, it is notable that there is no mention in the 
documentary evidence of XXXX XXXX  as a legitimate news agency . The RPD put to the 
principal Appellant that the XXXX XXXX  does not appear in the documentary evidence  and 
does not appea r to be a legitimate news organization. In reply, the principal Appellant did not 
directly respond to the question, stating that she worked for XXXX XXXX  part -time as a 
XXXX . She said it was the first time she heard that XXXX XXXX  is not a legitimate sourc e and 
that there was no information about it. I find the principal Appellant’s response unsatisfactory. 
The National Documentation Package ( NDP ) describes many journalists who have problems 
when websites  and media outlets  critical of the government are clo sed down , and  this is  recorded 
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       8  
 in the human rights documents . One would expect the objective documentary evidence to 
similarly mention  the difficulties faced by XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX .5 I draw a 
negative inference regarding the legitimacy of XXXX XXX X and XXXX XXXX XXXX  due to 
the lack of documentary evidence about them in general and the lack of specific evidence about 
hacking and having their correspondents arrested.  
[17]  I have additional credibility concerns with the letter from XXXX XXXX . I note that the 
research memo commented that the XXXX XXXX  does not appear to have a physical office. 
However, the content of the letter from the XXXX XXXX  suggests they do have an office 
because they have faced, “[r]estriction of our activities in the Republic of Aze rbaijan as well as 
threats at the office .” Yet, there is no office address provided in the XXXX XXXX  letterhead. I 
further observe that there is no phone number provided for the organization either. Instead, the 
only contact information is a generic contact email at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . 
One would expect that a legitimate news agency would have an of fice address and phone number 
mentioned in its letterhead, which could confirm its location, especially considering the letter 
was provided to rebut the concerns raised by the research memorandum about the lack of a 
physical location. Further compounding t he confusion was the principal Appellant’s testimony 
that they did have an address, which was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX  However, nowhere is this address corroborated by the evidence in the record, 
including her business identification pu rportedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX .6 Again, I would 
expect both the letter from the XXXX XXXX  or her company identification to provide contact 
information if it was a legitimate news organization, including the address and/or telephone 
number of the organizatio n. I draw another negative credibility inference with respect to the 
legitimacy of XXXX XXXX  as a news organization due to the lack of contact information.  
[18]  Given there is no objective evidence in the record about XXXX XXXX  or XXXX XXXX 
XXXX  facing difficul ties as alleged, the failure of the principal Appellant to mention the 
                                                 
5 XXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) , [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (FCA) , at para. 1.  
6 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , at p. 179.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       9  
 hacking and arrests faced by XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX , the lack of contact 
information for the organization, and considering the support letter fails to address the issues 
raised in  the research memo, I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX XXXX  is not a 
legitimate news agency.  
The Principal Appellant’s Article Contained an Error  
 The Appellants’ Argument  
[19]  The Appellants argue that the RPD unfairly impugned the principal Appell ant’s 
credibility due to a small ambiguity in one of her articles. In her article dated XXXX XXXX , 
2017, the principal Appellant wrote that “ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX7 
They submit the RPD misunderstood this sentence to mean that it was the XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX , and therefore, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , making the 
article inconsistent with the documentary evidence. The Appellants argue that it was erroneous to 
draw a negative inference on this basis. This is because the wording of the article could 
reasonably be read as referring to an appeal “of” XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . 
Such a reading would make the sentence cons istent with the country conditions evidence and the 
remainder of the sentence referring to the termination of the XXXX XXXX XXXX . In this light , 
it makes little sense to read the sentence as referring to the XXXX  appeal of XXXX XXXX  
XXXX . Finally, even if this wording was incorrect, it was a minor error and it is plausible that 
the principal Appellant and her editor failed to correct it.  
 
 
                                                 
7 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  at p. 107.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       10  
   
The RAD’s Assessment  
[20]  I reject the Appellants ’ argument and find the RPD did not err. The principal Appellant’s 
article and testimony during the hearing about the wording of her article supports the RPD’s 
conclusion that she is not a XXXX  and that XXXX XXXX  is not a legitimate news agency.  
[21]  The RPD put  to the Appellant that the way her article was written indicated that the 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX . When confronted with this wording , the principal Appellant stated that it 
must be a translation problem. H owever, the interpreter at the RPD confirmed that it was 
translated correctly and that the wording of the article informed readers that the XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX .8 The RPD then p ut to the principal Appellant that 
it was not an error in translation and asked if she had anything else to say about  it. At this point, 
the principal Appellant repeated that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Again notin g that this was inconsistent, 
the RPD referred to the documentary evidence and confirmed that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX , to which the principal Appellant agreed that XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and acknowledged that it was incorrectly worded in the 
article. The RPD asked how such a mistake could be made, and the principal Appellant’s 
explanation evolved to say that the editor makes his own corrections and that was the way it was 
written down. She said there are three or four workers loo king at the documents. However, the 
RPD confirmed that the principal Appellant’s understanding of the events was as they were 
written in the article and that she did not understand the error until the RPD member corrected 
her. The RPD asked if she had any comments about that, to which the Appellant stated she did 
not. I find the principal Appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy 
                                                 
8 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Re cord, RPD Hearing Recording.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       11  
 between the objective evidence and her own article. She only confirmed her writing was 
incorrect w hen confronted with the objective documentary evidence, but failed to explain why 
she  initially  understood her writing to be correct. One would expect that a serious XXXX  and a 
purported former employee of XXXX  XXXX , who has a direct interest in the procee dings, 
would know the facts of the proceedings against her former employer. Her account of the 
process, events and timeline do not align with the objective documentary evidence.9 Therefore, I 
find that the principal Appellant’s understanding of key facts a bout the XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  undermines her credibility as a XXXX  and the legitimacy of the 
XXXX XXXX . 
[22]  I also note that the documentary evidence states that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . However, the princi pal 
Appellant’s article referring to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , nearly a year after the court hearing.10 This is not a mere 
typographical error in the year the article was published  because the principal XXXXXXXXX did n ot 
start working at the XXXX XXXX  until XXXX  2016.11 I draw a further negative inference 
regarding the legitimacy of the principal Appellant as a journalist and the XXXX XXXX  for 
publishing an article nearly a year after the event occurred .  
The Principal A ppellant’s Employment at  ANS  
 The Appellants’ Argument  
[23]  The Appellants argue that the principal Appellant provided a reasonable explanation for 
why she wrote on her refugee forms that she started at XXXX  in 2008, but testified that she 
started working there in 2010. She explained that from 2008 to 2010 , she was in training as an 
                                                 
9 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Azerbaijan (30 April 2018), at item 
2.4, at p. 10; item 2.6, at p. 9; item 4.8, at p. 5; item 4.11, at p. 84; item 11.6, at p. 6.  
10 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Re cord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  at pp. 107 -108.  
11 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, Principal Appellant’s Schedule A Form, at p. 56.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       12  
 XXXX  XXXX  at the organization, but started working in 2010. When the RPD asked her about 
when she started working at XXXX , this was why she said 2010 and not 2008. Notwithstanding 
this discrepancy, she provided photographs of her work at XXXX  showing she worked as an on -
screen personality at some point. The principal Appellant’s start date at XXXX  was completely 
irrelevant to her c laim.  
 The RAD’s Assessment  
[24]  I agree with the Appellants that the start date at XXXX XXXX  is not a significant 
inconsistency. Her explanation for putting 2008 on her refugee forms, but testifying to 2010 is 
plausible. I do not draw a negative credibility in ference from this inconsistency. Whether or not 
the principal Appellant started at XXXX XXXX  in 2008 as an intern, or in 2010 as a paid 
XXXX XXXX , does not significantly undermine her allegation that she worked at XXXX 
XXXX  for at least six years.  
[25]  That sa id, I note that there is a dearth of evidence of the principal Appellant’s 
employment at XXXX XXXX . The principal Appellant provided a press card from her work at 
XXXX XXXX  in 2008, but she provides no press card or corroborating evidence of her work 
from XXXX XXXX , even though she alleges to have worked and  interned there as a XXXX 
XXXX  and XXXX  from 2008 to 2016. Considering she alleges to have started writing news for 
XXXX XXXX  as a XXXX  in 2012, one would expect that the principal Appellant could provid e 
evidence of her activities at XXXX XXXX , especially considering the NDP supports that XXXX 
XXXX  was shut down by the government for XXXX  reasons  in XXXX . I acknowledge that the 
principal Appellant provides photographs of her in front of a camera. However , I give these 
photographs no weight to establishing her work at XXXX XXXX . There is nothing in the 
photographs that demonstrates  that she was working for XXXX XXXX , and for that matter , as a 
XXXX . Tellingly, there is also no corroborating evidence from fo rmer colleagues that attest to 
her activities and employment at XXXX XXXX . For these reasons, I find the Appellants ha ve 
not provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence, on a balance of probabilities, to 
establish the principal Appellant was a XX XX  XXXX  and XXXX  for XXXX XXXX .  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       13  
 Medical and Hospital Reports  
The Appellants’ Argument  
  The Associate Appellant’s XXXX  Injury  
[26]  The RPD found the principal Appellant was inconsistent about whether the associate 
Appellant suffered an XXXX  injury as a result of his treatment in detention, as the principal 
XXXXXXXXX wrote in her BOC that he suffered an XXXX  injury, but during testimony said he had 
weak XXXX  and this was why he had XXXX  surgery. When confronted with the inconsistency, 
the pri ncipal XXXXXXXXX stated that her son had a head injury, and this also caused an injury to his 
already weak XXXX .  
[27]  The XXXXXXXXXX argue that the RPD mischaracterized the principal XXXXXXXXX’s testimony 
about the associate Appellant’s injury during detention  and the reasons for his XXXX  surgery. 
The Appellants submit that once the principal XXXXXXXXX understood that the RPD was asking 
whether her son was hit in the XXXX  during detention, she confirmed that he was hit in the 
head, but not directly in the XXXX . She stated that his head trauma aggravated an already -
existing XXXX XXXX  XXXX , which required surgery in XXXX  2017. The Appellants contend 
that her clarification was honest and spontaneous and she did not change her testimony according 
to the RPD. With re spect to the RPD’s finding that the associate Appellant’s hospital report did 
not mention his XXXX  injury, this is also explained by the fact that he was hit in the head, not 
directly in the XXXX  and that the head injury aggravated his XXXX  condition. Furt hermore, 
they submit that the RPD said the XXXX  surgery  documents looked legitimate. Therefore, they 
contend the principal Appellant’s explanation for the hospital report’s failure to describe his 
XXXX  injury were reasonable and consistent.  
  Omission of the Principal Appellant’s Hospitalization  
[28]  The Appellants argue that although she did not mention she attended the hospital in her 
BOC, she submits she did mention that she was assaulted in detention in 2017 in her BOC. Even 
though she did not mention attend ing at the hospital and returning home the same day, the BOC 
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       14  
 is not meant to be an encyclopaedic recitation of her evidence. They also submit that the 
principal Appellant provided a hospital report confirming she attended for medical treatment. 
Since the h ospital report was not found to be fraudulent, it was unreasonable for the RPD to give 
it “little weight” due to her failure to mention her attendance at the hospital in her BOC.  
 
 The RAD’s Assessment  
  The Associate Appellant’s XXXX  Injury  
[29]  I reject the A ppellants ’ argument and find the RPD did not err. The principal Appellant 
was inconsistent between her testimony and her BOC about the associate Appellant’s injuries 
during detention. The principal Appellant states in her BOC that her son was beaten in det ention 
and he received a head injury. She also states that when she went to the police station to pick him 
up, he was in a bad state and he had a head injury, so she took him to the clinic for tests. She 
further states that he required XXXX  surgery as a re sult of the injuries he sustained. In my view , 
this indicates that the associate Appellant’s treatment in detention resulted in an XXXX  injury 
that required surgery.  
[30]  However, when the RPD asked at the hearing about the associate Appellant’s XXXX  
injury, t he principal XXXXXXXXX said they hit him on the head. The RPD asked how his XXXX  got 
injured, and the principal Appellant stated he was XXXX . The RPD confirmed that he had no 
XXXX  injury, and the principal XXXXXXXXX said no, they hit him on his head. The RPD said it had 
read in the principal XXXXXXXXX’s documents that the son was injured and had an XXXX  injury as 
a result of his beating. The principal XXXXXXXXX said no, he did not.  The RPD read to the principal 
Appellant  what she  wrote in her BOC , which was that “my son required XXXX  surgery as a 
result of the injuries that he sustained”. Once confronted with this information, t he principal 
XXXXXXXXX’s testimony changed from the inf ormation in her BOC and  state d that since he has 
XXXX  and he was hit on his head, this affected his XXXX  as well. The RPD asked why she said 
earlier that there was no XXXX  injury, to which she replied they did not hit him on the XXXX , 
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       15  
 they hit him on his h ead and that affected his already weak XXXX . I do not accept the pr incipal 
Appellant’s explanation, her testimony evolved and does not explain why she mentioned nothing 
about the associate Appellant’s XXXX  problems or surgery when initially asked about his  
injuries , even though her BOC e xplicitly states that he required XXXX  surgery as a result of the 
injuries he sustained  in detention. Due to the principal XXXXXXXXX’s evolving and inconsistent 
testimony about the associate Appellant’s injuries and the reas ons for them, I draw a negative 
credibility inference that the associate XXXXXXXXX was detained and assaulted as alleged.  
[31]  Furthermore, although the RPD accepted his XXXX  surgery documents as legitimate, I 
give these XXXX  surgery documents no weight to est ablishing that he was beaten and injured in 
detention as alleged. The principal Appellant testified that her son has a pre -existing condition 
for XXXX , for which this XXXX  surgery was meant to correct. The XXXX  surgery documents 
simply indicate that he und erwent an XXXX  surgery, they do not mention what caused the 
XXXX  condition or whether it was worsened from any head injury. Therefore, I find his hospital 
and XXXX  surgery documents do not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was 
detained and beaten as alleged.  
  Omission of the Principal Appellant’s Hospitalization  
[32]  I reject the Appellants’ argument and find the RPD did not err. The principal Appellant’s 
failure to mention she suffered severe injuries that required her to go the hospital was no t a 
minor or elaborative detail. The way her BOC is written suggests that she was hit at the protest 
and in detention, but that it was not serious enough to warrant hospitalization and medical 
attention. I draw a negative inference regarding the principal Appellant being detained and 
beaten due to this omission.  
[33]  Furthermore, I find the principal Appellant’s hospital report is not a genuine document.12 
First, the principal Appellant’s testimony about what injuries she suffered is inconsistent with the 
                                                 
12 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, Principal Appellant’s Hospital Report, at p. 153.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       16  
 informa tion in her BOC and is inconsistent with her hospital report. The principal Appellant 
wrote in her BOC that the she was hit in the face, dragged and kicked by police officers. She also 
testified that one of her injuries was that she had an XXXX , which is n ot in her BOC, nor is it in 
her hospital report. Her hospital report states that she had a knock on her forehead, muscle pain, 
severe headache, vomiting and shortness of breath. I note the reference to vomiting is mentioned 
nowhere else in the principal Ap pellant’s evidence. Second, there is no address or contact 
information on the principal XXXXXXXXX’s hospital report, and there is no attending physician that 
has signed the report. The lack of contact information for the hospital makes it impossible to 
con firm the contents of the document and undermines the credibility of the source of the hospital 
report. One would expect that a legitimate hospital report would include contact information for 
the hospital and corroborate her alleged injuries. As a result o f these irregularities in the hospital 
report, I find it is not a genuine document and I give it no weight.  
[34]  Given the omission of the hospitalization, the inconsistent evidence of her injuries, and 
the fraudulent hospital report, I find on a balance of pr obabilities that the principal XXXXXXXXX was 
not detained and beaten as alleged in XXXX  2017. Moreover, I  note that submitting a false or 
irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by 
the Appellant s, especi ally  when they are interrelated.13 It can also negatively impact on her  
overall credibility.14 
Readership  
 The Appellants’ Argument  
[35]  The Appellants submit that the principal Appellant provided a plausible explanation for 
why she testified that the readership of XXXX XXXX  was approximately XXXX XXXX 
XXXX  to XXXX XXXX XXXX , even though the support letter from her editor states that the 
                                                 
13 XXXXX, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM -895 -01), XXXXXX, April 26, 2002, 2002 FCT 451.   
14 XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX v. M.C.I.  (F.C.T.D., no. IMM -3545 -99), Dubé, September 7, 2000.   
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       17  
 readership is XXXX XXXX XXXX . She explained that this was the number of followers of the 
XXXX XXXX  Instagram account.   
 The RAD’s Assessment  
[36]  While I do not agree that Instagram followers equates to what a news organization 
considers to be part of their regular readership, I do not find that the principal Appellant’s 
inconsistent testimony about the number of readers is significant. It is plausi ble that Instagram 
followers read content posted on Instagram and that the principal Appellant could perceive these 
as regular readers.  Therefore, I find the principal Appellant’s confusion over the number of 
readers compared to the number of Instagram fol lowers does not warrant a negative credibility 
finding.  
Other Credibility Concerns  
[37]  The Federal Court has found that it is neither unfair nor improper for the RAD in 
considering the very credibility issue raised by the Appellant, to review the evidence and come to 
its own conclusions. This is consistent with its role under XXXXXXXXXXXX In particular, in reviewing 
the record , including the transcript of the proceedings, the RAD is able to make credibility 
findings where there are inconsistencies that defy a ra tional explanation.16 Similarly, the RAD is 
able to find an additional basis to question the XXX ellant’s credibility using the evidentiary 
record before the RPD, and this does not necessarily raise a new issue as the Appellant’s 
credibility was already in q uestion before the RPD.17 In finding additional evidence in the record 
to undermine the Appellant’s credibility, the Appellant cannot claim to be taken by surprise 
when the RAD examines the very documents the Appellant submitted to the RPD.18 It is with 
                                                 
15 XXXXX v. M.C.I. , 2018 FC 384, at para. 22.  
16 XXXXXXXXXXXX v. M.C.I. , 2018 FC 360, at para. 35.  
17 XXXX v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 178 , at paras. 27 -32.  
18 XXXXXX v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration , 2018 FC 246, at para. 15, citing XXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister 
of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 380 , at paras. 21 -30.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       18  
 this in mind that I note the following additional concern with the Appellants ’ evidence, which 
further undermines their  credibility and core aspects of their  claim.  
 Son Not Threatened by Principal Due to Mother’s Activities  
[38]  The Appellants ’ BOC s state that after the principal XXXXXXXXX was detained in XXXX  
2017, the associate Appellant’s high school principal called him into his office and said he was 
aware of the principal XXXXXXXXX’s activities and that this would cause problems for him at 
sch ool. I find this did not occur on a balance of probabilities. The associate Appellant provided 
evidence to the RPD that he graduated high school in 2015, which was two years before this 
alleged threat.19 He lists no education after attending secondary schoo l. In addition, I note that 
the associate Appellant’s Schedule A Form states that he was in secondary school until XXXX  
2017, which is inconsistent with his own certificate and would make him XXXX  years old at the 
time of his graduation. I find the associa te Appellant was not threatened by his high school 
principal as alleged and this further undermines the credibility of the principal Appellant’s 
allegations that she is a XXXX  and that they have faced problems due to her alleged XXXX  
activities . 
 Reasons f or Delay not Credible  
[39]  The RPD asked the principal Appellant why, if she possessed a U.S. visa in XXXX  2017, 
and she testified that she decided to leave Azerbaijan on XXXX XXXX  or XXXX , 2017, she did 
not leave Azerbaijan in XXXX  2017. In response, the princ ipal Appellant stated that it was 
because the associate Appellant was injured, his condition was not good, he could not raise his 
head, and so she could not leave. However, there is no evidence that the associate Appellant was 
injured or ill in XXXX  2017. Rather his alleged detention was in XXXX  2017 and his XXXX  
surgery for XXXX  was in XXXX  2017. I find the principal Appellant’s explanation for why she 
                                                 
19 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, Associate Appellant’s Secondary School Certificate, at pp. 170 -175.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       19  
 did not leave Azerbaijan in XXXX  2017, to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record and 
lacks credi bility.  
 Post -Detention Writing  
[40]  Again, the principal Appellant testified that she decided to leave Azerbaijan on XXXX 
XXXX  XXXX XXXX , 2017, days after she was detained by authorities after attending an 
opposition protest as a XXXX . Despite this alleged fea r and intent to leave Azerbaijan, the 
principal Appellant continued to write articles for XXXX XXXX . She wrote and published 
articles on XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX , 2017.20 Notably, the principal Appellant’s article 
published weeks after her detention, on XXXX XXXX , calls for the XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX . However, the principal Appellant faced no difficulties or further encounters with 
authorities until she left the country in XXXX  2017, despite calling for the XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX . The lack of difficulties experienced by the principal Appellant and the XXXX 
XXXX  for having published such an article is not consistent with the objective documentary 
evidence. In particular, the objective documentary evidence demonstrates that several individuals 
have faced sign ificant prison terms for calling for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX .21 The lack 
of difficulties experienced by the principal Appellant and the XXXX XXXX  for having written 
an article calling for the XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX  in XXXX  2017 illustrates that authorities 
are not interested in her and she is not taken seriously by authorities as a XXXX  or XXXX 
XXXX , and underlines the fact that the XXXX XXXX  is not considered a reputable news 
agency. I draw a negative inference regarding the principal Appellant’s legitimacy as  a XXXX  
and the legitimacy of the XXXX XXXX  due to the lack of any difficulties experienced by them 
following the publication of an article calling for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . 
 The Principal Appellant’s Articles  
                                                 
20 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, “ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ” at pp. 112 -115; “ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ”, at p. 107.  
21 Exh ibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, NDP for Azerbaijan, 30 April 2018, at item 2.1, at p. 12 ; item 2.3, at pp. 3 and 6; 
item 2.4, at p. 11 .  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       20  
 [41]  I have also reviewed the articles written b y the principal Appellant and posted on the 
XXXX XXXX  website. I find the quality of these articles further undermine the Appellants’ 
allegations that the principal Appellant is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX that the XXXX XXXX  is a 
legitimate news agency. For example, t he principal Appellant’s article titled, XXXX XXXX 
XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX . The article appears neutral and objective by stating simply the background of the 
situation of the XXXX  of XXXX XXXX XXXX , as well as stating the laws applicable to the 
case. However, at the end of the article, the tone, style, and impartiality ends suddenly , as if it 
was written by someone else entirely. The principal Appellant ends the article on a rant by 
stating in the last five line s, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The principal Appellant then 
unnecessarily repeats this same sentiment immediately after. I find the disjointed and mi xed tone 
and style of the article undermines the principal Appellant’s legitimacy as a journalist.  
[42]  Second, the principal Appellant’s XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  is confusing, repetitive 
and makes very lit tle sense in light of the title of the article. It is unclear what the principal 
Appellant is trying to say in the article. In my view it is analogous to a stream of consciousness 
rather than a coherent article about how the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX . For example, the principal Appellant begins by vaguely talking of restricted sites, 
assuming the reader knows the sites the author is specifically referring to, or what exactly the 
“claim” is. It goes on to nonsensically state “there is not one single  article that can be written as a 
forced elimination of the consequences of this extrapolation”. I have no idea what this means. In 
addition, this previous sentence is part of a passage that states, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX ” and that 
is repeated verbatim five times in the same paragraph. The following paragraph has a similar 
issue, repeating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  
three times in the same paragraph. I find the quality of the princip al Appellant’s articles 
undermines the legitimacy of her allegations that she is a XXXX  and that the XXXX XXXX  is a 
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       21  
 legitimate news agency. I find her articles to be so lacking in quality that they are unlikely to be 
taken seriously by Azerbaijani authorit ies as genuine government criti que .  
General Credibility Finding  
 The Appellants’ Argument  
[43]  The Appellants argue that due to the RPD’s erroneous credibility findings, the RPD’s 
general negative credibility finding cannot stand. Since the general negative credibility finding 
was erroneous, the RPD inappropriately assessed the weight of their documents.  
 The RAD’s Assessment  
[44]  While I have found that the RPD erred in a couple of its credibility findings, I have made 
several additional negative credibility find ings regarding the Appellants ’ allegations. Taken as a 
whole, I find there are sufficient credibility concerns to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, 
that the Appellants are not generally credible. The numerous credibility concerns examined 
above, whi ch are central to the core of the claim, cause me to doubt the veracity of all of the 
Appellants’  evidence, including their documentary evidence.22 
Police Invitation and Court Decision  
[45]  Other than the Appellants ’ argument regarding the RPD’s negative general  credibility 
finding, the Appellants do not contest the RPD’s specific findings regarding the invitations to the 
police and the court decision regarding the principal Appellant’s XXXX  activities. Even though 
the Appellants do not specifically address these  findings, I give the documents no weight to 
establishing their allegations for the following reasons.  
 Court Decision  
                                                 
22 XXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1990] 3 FC R 238 (C.A.), at para. 8.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       22  
 [46]  First, I agree with the RPD that the content of the “court decision” is inconsistent with the 
documentary evidence. The Appellants do not  contest this finding and I see no reason to interfere 
with it. It is correct and based on the evidence in the record. In particular, the NDP provides a 
number of examples of the types of crimes journalists have been charged with, none of which 
have been s o blatant as to overtly state the authorities want them for their “activity as XXXX ”. 
Rather, they indicate false charges unrelated to journalism.23 Second, I note that the principal 
Appellant’s court document states she is accused of offence under the Code  of Criminal 
Procedure of Azerbaijan. However, this is a law related to criminal procedure, it is not the law 
applicable for the laying of criminal offences. The correct law to be cited is the Criminal Code of 
Azerbaijan, not the Code of Criminal Procedure .24 Given these irregularities, I find the court 
decision document is not genuine and I give it no weight to establishing the Appellants ’ 
allegations that the principal Appellant is wanted by Azerbaijani authorities for her XXXX . 
 Invitations to Police  
[47]  I al so give the invitations to police no weight to establishing the Appellants’ allegations. 
First, the invitations to the police do not indicate for what purpose they wish to speak to the 
principal Appellant, and it does not state that she is a suspect, just that they want to speak to her 
in regards to a criminal case. This could be in relation to criminal cases not involving her, and it 
is not persuasive evidence that the police are after her. Second, I find the timing of the invitations 
to police to be suspi cious. All of these invitations started one week after the XXXXXXXXXX made 
their refugee claim in Canada. This is especially curious, in light of the fact that the principal 
Appellant had no difficulties until she left Azerbaijan in XXXX  2017, despite cont inuing to 
publish articles against the XXXX XXXX  until she left the country. She further testified that 
since she left Azerbaijan , her mother and brother in Azerbaijan, who reside at her former 
                                                 
23 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, NDP for Azerbaijan, 30 April 2018, at item 4.11, at pp. 6 -13.  
24 Ibid, at p p. 11 and 43 -44. For example, one of the individuals listed in item 4.11 was charged under Article 233 of 
the Criminal Code, which is “ organizing actions causing violation of  public order or active participation in such 
actions ”. But the principal Appellant was accused under Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Azerbaijan. 
No one in the documentary evidence who was a government critic was charged under Code of Criminal Procedure.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       23  
 residential address in XXXX , have experienced no problems due to her activities. The lack of 
problems for her relatives is inconsistent with the documentary evidence, which states relatives 
of XXXX  and political opponents have been harassed and arrested due to the activities of their 
family members, even those in exile.25 The Court has found that it is not unreasonable for the 
RAD to infer that the events are improbable when they are “suspiciously co nvenient”26 and “too 
fortuitous in nature to be believed.”27 I believe this applies in this case given the circumstances 
and timing of the invitations to police. Finally, the Appellants have been shown to be lacking in 
general credibility and willing to prov ide fraudulent documents in support of their claim. The 
latter of which includes a non -genuine court document referring to her failure to report. This 
further diminishes the weight that can be given to the invitations. For the above reasons, I give 
the App ellants ’ invitations to police no weight to establishing their allegations.  
[48]  Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find the Appellant s have not established 
with sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence that the principal Appellant is a XXXX  or 
XXXX XXXX  of interest to the Azerbaijani authorities. Nor have the Appellants established that 
the XXXX XXXX  is a legitimate news agency.  
The Appellants do not possess a profile that places them at a forward -looking risk  
The Appellants’ Argument  
[49]  The Appellants argue that the RPD erred by failing to engage with the documentary 
evidence and to assess whether the Appellants possessed a residual profile. Specifically, the 
Appellants submit that the principal Appellant’s work as an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX , who has explicit XXXX XXXX XXXX  material published online with her picture and 
name, places them at risk upon return to Azerbaijan. There is evidence showing that the 
Azerbaijan government detains and arrests real and perceived political opponents, t here is 
                                                 
25 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, NDP for Azerbaijan, 30 April 2018, at items 2.1, 4.11, 11.2, and 11.5.  
26 XXXX, Renxian  v. M.C.I.  (F.C., no. IMM -1102 -14), de Montigny, March 23, 2015, 2015 FC 365, at para. 22.  
27 XXXXXX, Bismark  v. M.E.I.  (F.C.T.D., no. T -1986 -92), XXXX, March 16, 1993.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       24  
 evidence that XXXX XXXX  has a readership in the thousands and over XXXX XXXX XXXX  
Instagram followers, there is evidence that the principal Appellant was a public personality, there 
is evidence she wrote XXXX XXXX XXXX  material online that is criti cal of the government, 
there is evidence that her articles remain on XXXX XXXX , there is evidence that people have 
been detained, threatened and tortured in brutal conditions for simply posting Facebook 
messages in support of political prisoners or satiriz ing government policies, and there is evidence 
that the Azerbaijani government has resorted to intense cyber surveillance to crackdown on 
perceived opposition.  
The RAD’s Assessment  
[50]  I reject the Appellants’ argument and find the XXXXXXXXXX have not establis hed a residual 
risk profile based on the publication online of articles written by the principal Appellant. As 
discussed above, there are serious credibility concerns with the principal XXXXXXXXX’s allegations 
that she is a XXXX . However, even if she is not a XXXX , I find that the evidence in the record 
supports the conclusion that the quality of her writing, as well as her lack of difficulties in 
Azerbaijan demonstrate that she is not taken seriously by Azerbaijan authorities as  a government 
critic, and she is not of interest to them. Therefore, while she may face a mere possibility of 
persecution, I find she does not face more than a mere possibility of persecution due to her 
published articles.  
[51]  Having reviewed the objective do cumentary evidence about the detention of various 
journalists and bloggers, it shows that those with a popular following and/or who are part of 
legitimate news agencies face harassment and difficulties from authorities.28 This is not the 
principal Appellant ’s situation. In this case , the readership is varied, but approximately XXXX 
XXXX XXXX . I do not agree that Instagram followers equate to regular readers of XXXX 
XXXX  content. In addition, the organization she works for is found not to be a credible news 
                                                 
28 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, NDP for Azerbaijan, 30 April 2018, at items 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 4.11, 11.2, 11.6, and 
11.5.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       25  
 organization based on the evidence in the record. There is no corroboration of the organization 
having difficulties as alleged, and the principal Appellant has not established that she and her 
relatives are of interest to the authorities. Based on the evide nce, it is clear that she is not 
perceived to be a government critic  and I find she would not be perceived as a government critic 
if she returned to Azerbaijan .  
[52]  Furthermore, with respect to her allegation that her appearance as a XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX  heightens her profile, this too is rejected. Not only have I found above 
that the Appellants have not established she worked at the XXXX XXXX  as alleged, I note that 
even if she was a XXXX XXXX , it was not as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . Rather, 
she hosted a show called “Fan Club” about introducing celebrities to their  fans. Moreover, I find 
it unlikely that the principal XXXXXXXXX’s work as a XXXX XXXX  and XXXX  at XXXX XXXX  
heightens her profile, since she experienced no difficulties following the governmen t shut down 
of XXXX XXXX  in XXXX , unlike some of those who worked for XXXX XXXX . 
[53]  For the above reasons, I find the Appellants have not established that they face more than 
a mere possibility of persecution for having published online articles critical of t he government. 
While persecution may be a mere possibility, I find it is not more than a mere possibility.   
[54]  Finally, with respect to the allegation that they are at risk if they returned to Azerbaijan as 
failed asylum -seekers, I reject this argument. I ha ve canvassed the documentary evidence in the 
record, and I find no objective basis to support their allegation that the Appellants are at risk 
upon return to Azerbaijan as failed asylum -seekers. On the contrary, the information in the 
documentary evidence I found  states that the government cooperated with UNHCR and other 
humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced 
persons, refugees, returning refugees , asylum seekers, stateless persons, and other persons of 
conc ern.29 
                                                 
29 Exhibit RPD -1, RPD’s Record, NDP for Azerbaijan, 30 April 2018, at item 2.1, at p. 22.  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       26  
 [55]  Therefore, I find the Appellants have not credibly established their allegations and they 
do not face a serious possibility of persecution, nor have they established on a balance of 
probabilities a risk of torture, or cruel or unusual treatment or pu nishment upon return to 
Azerbaijan.  
CONCLUSION  
[56]  After conducting its own analysis of the record, the RAD finds that the RPD did err in  
some of  its credibility findings.  However, the RAD has made additional credibility findings 
respecting the Appellants’ all egations to uphold the RPD’s credibility conclusion. Furthermore, 
while the RAD  agrees that the RPD should have assessed the forward -facing risk based on facts 
remaining in the record, I conclude based on the evidence in the record, that they have not 
esta blished a serious possibility of persecution as a perceived government critic, nor have they 
established on a balance of probabilities a risk of torture, or cruel or unusual treatment or 
punishment upon return to Azerbaijan. The principal Appellant is not a XXXX  and she does not 
work for a reputable news agency. The evidence in the record also shows she and the associate 
Appellant have not experienced difficulties due to her articles, even after purportedly calling for 
the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . The evidence in the record demonstrates that the quality of 
her work is so poor that she is not of interest to the authorities  and would not be of interest to 
authorities . She is not taken seriously as a XXXX  or as a XXXX XXXX . Therefore, the RPD’s 
final determination that the Appellant s are not Convention refugee s or person s in need of 
protection  is correct . This appeal is denied.   
DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL  
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : TB8 -22172  
TB8 -22173  
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français       27  
 [57]  The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD th at the Appellant s 
are neither Convention refugee s nor person s in need of protection.30 
 
 
(signed ) “G. XXXXX ” 
 XXXXXXXX  
 December 14, 2018  
 Date  
 
                                                 
30 Paragraph  111(1)( a), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c.  27. [ IRPA ] 
2018 CanLII 143892 (CA IRB)

