An Indian refugee claimant has won a major legal victory after Canada’s Federal Court ruled that authorities improperly dismissed his asylum bid based on the narrative’s resemblance to other claims. Parwinder Singh, who alleges he fled persecution in India after being framed for a friend’s murder, will now receive a fresh review of his case.
Initially rejected by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Singh’s claim was flagged for sharing “striking similarities” with other applications—many linked to immigration consultant Deepak Pawar. But Federal Court Justice Guy Régimbald, in a decision issued July 11, criticized RAD for placing too much weight on stylistic similarities rather than investigating the substance of Singh’s story. “Asylum narratives are not exercises in creative writing,” he wrote, adding that form cannot trump facts in refugee proceedings.
Singh’s account began with a violent 2019 altercation in Haryana, India, in which he witnessed a fatal stabbing allegedly involving a politician’s nephew. He claims police later tortured him into giving false statements, held him for days, and only released him after a bribe was paid. Fearing retaliation, he entered Canada under the pretense of attending a Tae Kwon Do event and then filed for asylum.
Canadian authorities said Singh’s claim echoed those of five other individuals on the same flight and cited 21 identical narrative segments to another case. They alleged this was part of a pattern involving over 200 similar claims linked to Pawar.
Singh later amended his application, adding that he feared persecution for his support of the pro-Khalistan movement—a revision that briefly earned him protected status. However, the RAD overturned that ruling, arguing the Khalistan claim was fabricated to strengthen his case.
Justice Régimbald, however, found no direct evidence that Pawar used a template or coached claimants to submit identical stories. He ruled that the RAD failed to consider alternative reasons for the narrative overlap, such as limited language skills and reliance on the same consultant.
The court’s decision sends the case back for reconsideration, giving Singh another opportunity to prove his claim based on personal credibility rather than narrative structure. While his status in Canada remains unresolved, the ruling marks a critical pushback against overreliance on language patterns in refugee determinations.