An Indian refugee claimant has won a second chance at seeking asylum in Canada after a federal court overturned a prior dismissal of his case, originally rejected for its alleged similarity to hundreds of others filed through the same immigration consultant.
Parwinder Singh, who claims he fled India after being wrongfully accused of murder, had his application thrown out by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on the grounds that his narrative appeared suspiciously similar to other claims tied to immigration consultant Deepak Pawar. The RAD had raised concerns that Singh’s story shared 21 passages with another claimant who arrived in Canada on the same flight.
However, Federal Court Justice Guy Régimbald ruled on July 11 that the RAD gave too much weight to writing style and not enough to the facts of the case. The judge emphasized that refugee accounts are not expected to be original pieces of literature, especially when applicants rely on the same consultant for guidance. He noted that overlaps in language or structure don’t automatically imply deception. “Asylum narratives are not exercises in creative writing,” the judge wrote, cautioning against valuing style over substance.
According to Singh, the trouble began in 2019 when he witnessed a stabbing in his hometown in Haryana. He alleged that one of the attackers was related to a politician and that he was later beaten, detained, and coerced by local police. Singh said he was released only after a bribe was paid and eventually fled to Canada under the pretense of attending a Tae Kwon Do tournament.
In an update to his original refugee claim, Singh added that he feared persecution for supporting the pro-Khalistan movement, which initially helped secure protection. But immigration authorities appealed again, and the RAD overturned that decision, calling the revised claim another attempt to manipulate the process.
Justice Régimbald pushed back on that conclusion, stating that the RAD lacked concrete evidence that Pawar was mass-producing asylum narratives and failed to consider alternate explanations for the similarities. He ordered a new review of Singh’s case, granting him a renewed opportunity to argue his claim.
Though Singh’s status in Canada remains undecided, the court’s ruling has opened the door for a more individualized assessment—one that prioritizes credibility and lived experience over copy-paste suspicions.