The Court allowed a judicial review holding that the board did an incomplete analysis. Even if it rejected some of the evidence, it ought to have analyzed the claim with respect to those aspects believed:
In my view, the Board focused entirely on the part of the applicants’ claim relating to a long-standing family feud. It was entitled to conclude that the applicants’ evidence relating to that situation was not credible. However, it also had a duty to consider the other grounds put forward by the applicants and consider their merits. The fact that their evidence relating to the feud was not credible did not excuse the Board from considering those other grounds.
As I stated in Joseph v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 548, at para 11:
The Board must be careful not to dismiss a refugee claim on the basis that it disbelieves parts of the claimant’s testimony, or evidence that does not go to the core of the claim. Sometimes claimants embellish their stories, or they forget minor details. It is unreasonable for the Board to dismiss claims simply because they find evidence at the fringes not to be reliable or trustworthy. Even if the Board finds some evidence not to be credible, it must go on to consider whether there remains a residuum of reliable evidence to support a well-founded fear of persecution.