Maple News reports that Afghan journalist Ahmad Q. Barekzai has been given a renewed opportunity to make his case for asylum in Canada after the Federal Court ruled that his initial refugee claim was handled unreasonably by immigration authorities.
Barekzai, who fled Afghanistan alleging persecution by the Taliban due to his critical reporting, claimed that he faced violent threats and survived an attempted kidnapping. However, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) previously dismissed his claim, largely questioning the plausibility of his account and labeling his testimony as not credible.
One central point of contention was Barekzai’s assertion that the kidnapping was thwarted because bystanders were present. The IRB found this unlikely, suggesting that mere witnesses would not have deterred Taliban operatives. However, the Federal Court disagreed with this line of reasoning, criticizing the IRB for appearing to evaluate the case through the lens of what a ‘reasonable Taliban’ would do in such circumstances.
The Court emphasized that the IRB’s approach lacked objectivity and veered into speculative territory, especially considering the unpredictable and extremist nature of terrorist groups like the Taliban. Moreover, the Court noted that the country-specific information relied upon by the IRB — known as the National Documentation Package — offered no evidence on how kidnappings in Afghanistan typically unfold, leaving critical gaps in the credibility assessment.
In their ruling, justices highlighted that the IRB failed in its obligation to provide a transparent and intelligible decision-making process, and that its evaluation of Barekzai’s claim did not meet the standard of reasonableness. As a result, the Court ruled in Barekzai’s favor, allowing him another opportunity to present his case for refugee protection.
This decision not only impacts Barekzai’s future, but also raises broader concerns about how Canada’s immigration system assesses danger faced by journalists and others fleeing extremist regimes. It suggests a growing need for adjudicators to avoid projecting rationale onto non-rational actors, especially when evaluating high-stakes asylum claims based on violence and persecution.
While Barekzai’s future in Canada remains uncertain, this court decision reopens a pathway to safety and justice — and shines a light on improving the fairness and integrity of refugee determinations within Canada’s immigration framework.