Canadian Federal Court Upholds Refusal of Indian Couple’s Khalistan-Based Asylum Claim

The Federal Court has rejected the asylum appeal of an Indian couple, Amandeep Singh (38) and Kanwaldeep Kaur (32), ruling on August 25, 2025 that earlier refusals by the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division will stand. The pair said they would face persecution in India for pro‑Khalistan activity, but the court found no reason to overturn the tribunal’s findings on credibility.

In his decision, Judge Benoit M. Duchesne wrote: “The Applicants have not established that the Decision is unreasonable. There is no basis for the Court to interfere with the RAD’s decision.” With that, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship’s position prevailed, closing the couple’s path to refugee status in Canada.

Case background and tribunal findings

Singh and Kaur arrived in June 2018 on temporary resident visas. Their initial claim to the Refugee Protection Division focused on a politically connected neighbour in Punjab and alleged actions by police, including threats, beatings, and sexual assault against Kaur.

Later, before the tribunal, they shifted the basis of their claim to politics, saying they became active backers of Khalistan after reaching Canada. They submitted:

• protest photos and
• voter registration cards for the Punjab Referendum linked to Sikhs for Justice, a group India has banned.

The Refugee Protection Division identified gaps in timing and narrative and concluded their interest in Khalistan was not genuine. The Refugee Appeal Division agreed on appeal, calling the claim disingenuous and made in bad faith.

The Federal Court’s ruling leaves the couple with only limited post‑refusal options.

Policy climate in 2025

The ruling comes amid a tighter policy environment:

• Under the 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan, Canada cut the target for refugees and protected persons by 31% in 2025 — from 29,000 to 20,000.
• Government officials cite pressure on housing, health care, and settlement capacity as reasons for the cuts.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com warns that lower targets and closer screening mean longer waits for many people fearing return.

Parliament is also considering Bill C‑2 (tabled June 2025), which would add new filters on who can seek asylum, including potential ineligibility for people who:

• file more than a year after entering Canada, or
• cross the Canada–U.S. border irregularly.

Although not yet law, the bill signals that timing and method of entry may soon matter even more.

• Lawyers and consultants say weak or opportunistic claims slow the system and harm people with strong cases.
• Advocacy groups disagree. The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) warns that lower targets mean only about one in five people in the protected person stream will gain permanent status this year.
• CCR President Diana Gallego has urged the government to rebuild capacity and keep protection at the centre.

What the ruling means for claimants

The Singh–Kaur decision underscores a clear trend: decision‑makers are weighing credibility very closely, particularly when grounds for fear change after arrival in Canada.

Key points tribunals look for:

• Consistent testimony and specific, personalized evidence linking the claimant to risk.
• Photos from large rallies or generic letters carry limited weight unless they show a personalized threat.
• Sudden narrative shifts, unusual timing, or weak supporting documents often doom a file at the first stage and are usually not fixable later.

Process overview (how an asylum claim typically proceeds):

1. A person seeks protection at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
2. If refused, some can appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD).
3. A further challenge to the Federal Court is a review, not a new hearing — the court asks whether the RAD made a legal or factual error meeting a high bar.

Two last‑chance avenues after final refusal:

• Pre‑Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) — allows certain people to show new evidence of danger not reasonably available earlier. Details and eligibility: Pre‑Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
• Humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application — asks officials to consider hardship, family ties in Canada, and the best interests of any children. Guide and forms: Humanitarian and compassionate considerations — apply

Both routes are difficult to win without strong, new facts.

Practical advice for claimants

For people still at the start of a claim, the main lessons are:

• File early and submit a clear, consistent claim.
• Provide evidence that links your own life to the risk you describe.

Expect close questioning for Khalistan‑related claims:

• Who specifically targeted you?
• When did threats begin?
• What happened to people close to you?
• Could you live safely in another part of India?

Practical evidence to collect:

• Police complaints
• Medical records
• Travel stamps
• Messages and threat documentation
• Witness statements with dates and contact details

Simple rules counselled by lawyers:

• Do not change the core story unless new facts emerge — if they do, explain the change immediately.
• Tell the RPD the same facts you tell your lawyer, doctor, and the border officer.

Community impact and tribunal perspective

The Sikh diaspora is concerned that any link to a banned group in India could bring danger if return occurs. Tribunals do accept that some people face real risk for political beliefs, but they distinguish between:

• general public support for a movement, and
• targeted harm directed at a specific person.

Public support at a rally in Canada, by itself, rarely proves that Indian police or rivals will hunt a specific person. Individualized proof matters.

Key takeaway: Tribunals demand specific, consistent evidence that ties the claimant personally to risk. Broad or opportunistic claims are unlikely to succeed.

Official information on how to seek protection, who can appeal, and what evidence is needed is available from the Immigration and Refugee Board: Making a claim — IRB. This site explains the role of the RPD and RAD, hearing timelines, and the duty to update records if facts change.