Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Application for Protection Due to Lack of Evidence

Date: 20260423 Docket: IMM-5911-25 Citation: 2026 FC 541 Ottawa, Ontario, April 23, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of the negative determination of his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [[NAME]] application. Background [ 2 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Albania. He entered Canada in 2018 and made a claim for [NAME]. He claimed that in the 2000’s his father was the Head of the Commission for the Return and Compensation of Properties and that the [NAME] took issue with his father’s work, believing that they were entitled to greater land shares. In 2003, [NAME] shot at the Applicant’s car. [NAME] was convicted and sentenced to prison, where he served 14 years. In 2017, [NAME] started a bar fight with the Applicant, his brother and a cousin. [NAME] suffered a brain injury and the [NAME] declared a blood feud against the Applicant and the [NAME]. The Applicant claimed that he feared harm at the hands of the [NAME]. [ 3 ] The [NAME] [[NAME]] dismissed the Applicant’s claim for protection. The [NAME] found the Applicant not to be credible. Further, that he had not rebutted the presumption that state protection was available to him, which was the determinative issue. [ 4 ] The Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. The [NAME] found that the [NAME] did not err in its state protection analysis. The Applicant had failed to provide an adequate evidentiary basis to establish that police corruption negated the obligation to take reasonable steps to try to obtain state protection. The determinative issue was whether the Applicant took steps to seek state protection that were reasonably available to him in light of all relevant factors, including country conditions, family history, and his personal profile. The [NAME] found that he failed to do so. [ 5 ] The Applicant sought judicial review of the [NAME]’s decision, but leave was denied by this Court. [ 6 ] The Applicant then applied for a [NAME]. By a decision dated January 17, 2025, a Senior Immigration Officer [[NAME] or Officer] refused the application. That decision is the subject of this judicial review. [NAME] Decision [ 7 ] The [NAME] found that the allegations of risk presented by the Applicant in his [NAME] were materially the same as those presented to the [NAME] and [NAME]. He continues to fear harm at the hands of the [NAME]. However, that the Applicant claimed that there had been two new incidents since the [NAME]’s decision. Specifically, that on June 14, 2021, an automatic weapon was used to shoot at his family’s [NAME] in Gjirokaster, Albania. And, on August 16, 2023, his father called the police due to suspicion movements around his family’s [NAME]. When the police arrived, they discovered explosives around the [NAME]. The Applicant provided police reports with respect to both incidents. The Applicant also claimed that individuals from the [NAME] had messaged his mother threatening to kill the Applicant. He asserted that he would not be able to get adequate state protection as the blood feud phenomenon and criminality are widespread in Albania and the number of blood feud incidents continue to rise. [ 8 ] The [NAME] found that the Applicant had not explained how he knew that the [NAME] was involved in the two incidents at his family’s [NAME]. And, in the absence of any explanation, found the assertion that the [NAME] was responsible to be speculative. The Applicant had also provided insufficient evidence to support his assertion that his mother had received threatening messages from the [NAME], such as corroborative evidence from his mother who was the actual recipient of the messages. [ 9 ] The [NAME] then addressed the Applicant’s claim that state protection would not be available to him but found that his evidence demonstrated that police had been responsive. In the first incident, the police immediately responded to reports of gunshots and, in the second, they immediately responded to [NAME]’s call for assistance about suspicious activity on his [NAME]. And, although some time had passed, the Applicant had not provided any further updates about the status of the police investigations into these two incidents. [ 10 ] The [NAME] also found that the Applicant’s evidence failed to rebut the state protection findings of the [NAME]. The Officer stated that they considered only the country conditions evidence submitted by the Applicant that post-dated the [NAME]’s decision and that they had also conducted their own independent research. The [NAME] found that, contrary to the Applicant’s submission, the documentary evidence indicates that the number of blood feuds in Albania is low and is declining, that a person fearing an active blood feud is not likely to be at risk of persecution or serious harm and that, in [NAME], the state is willing and able to offer effective protection to such persons. While corruption and organized crime remain serious problems in Albania, the Applicant had not identified, and the [NAME] had not found, a material change in country conditions and the state’s ability to protect the Applicant since the [NAME]’s decision. [ 11 ] Accordingly, the [NAME] found that the Applicant would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution as described in section 96 of the Immigration and [NAME] Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ] upon return to Albania. Further, that it was not likely that the Applicant would face a risk of torture, risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment as described in paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA upon return. Issues and Standard of Review [ 12 ] In my view, the sole issue that arises in this matter is whether the [NAME]’s decision was reasonable. [ 13 ] The Applicant makes no submissions as to the applicable standard of review. I agree with the Respondent that the standard of review on the merits of the [NAME]’s decision is reasonableness. On judicial review the court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 99). Analysis [ 14 ] The Applicant first submits that the [NAME] erred by failing to accept that the Applicant’s evidence established a link between the incidents in 2021 and 2023 and the [NAME]. The Applicant asserts that the Officer provided no basis for impugning the credibility of the Applicant’s sworn statement that his mother continued to receive threats from the [NAME], yet the Officer still rejected it for lack of corroboration contrary to [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 968 [ [NAME] ], and afforded him no opportunity to explain why corroborating evidence was not provided. [ 15 ] As the Officer pointed out, in his affidavit filed in support of his [NAME] application, the Applicant described the two incidents that occurred at his family’s [NAME]. However, he did not explain how he knows that the [NAME] was involved in those incidents. I note that in his affidavit the Applicant does not specifically state that these incidents were perpetrated by the [NAME]. He does state that individuals from the [NAME] had messaged his mother on occasion saying that if they found the Applicant they would kill him. The [NAME] noted this but found that “insufficient evidence has been provided to support this, such as corroborative evidence from his mother who was the actual recipient of the messages.” The Officer also noted that although the police reports for each incident, dated June 15, 2021, and May 29, 2024, respectively, indicated that investigations were ongoing, the Applicant had not provided any further police updates. [ 16 ] First, in my view, the [NAME] did not make a credibility finding. As Justice Kane explained in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1647 [ [NAME] ] “[a] decision-maker may find that evidence is not sufficient without making any determination of credibility. In other words, the evidence is accepted as truthful but found not to be enough to establish the claim” (at para 35, see also paras 34-42 more generally; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 1067 at para 27; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 837 at paras 25-26; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1764 at para 13; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 922 at para 19). That is what happened here. The Officer found that there was insufficient evidence linking the [NAME] to the attacks, however, the Officer did not make a credibility finding. Rather, the Officer found that the Applicant had provided insufficient evidence overall to establish a link to the alleged agents of persecution, the [NAME], and that the Applicant could reasonably have further supported that link. [ 17 ] I am also not convinced that the [NAME] required corroborating evidence. The Officer found that there was insufficient evidence to support the alleged link to the [NAME] and, in that regard, noted by way of example that the Applicant could have provided corroborating evidence from his mother, who was the actual recipient of the messages. Viewed in the context of their reasons in whole, I find that the Officer was not demanding corroborating evidence but was pointing out the insufficiency of the evidence that was actually provided and that the Applicant could have resolved that concern by providing further, reasonably available evidence. Thus, [NAME] has no application. [ 18 ] In any event, while the Applicant relies on [NAME] in submitting that if the Officer did not make a credibility finding, then there was no basis to require corroborative evidence, in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 290 [ [NAME] ], Justice Go addressed [NAME] and stated: [ 29 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] did not follow this legal framework because it did not make any negative credibility findings. [ 30 ] I note however, Justice Grammond made it clear in [NAME] at paragraph 41 that “[e]nsuring the trustworthiness of hearsay may be valid grounds for requiring corroboration.” In  [NAME] , Justice Grammond was concerned that “the [NAME] may have required corroboration because of its flawed implausibility findings, instead of a desire to buttress the trustworthiness of hearsay” as “[n]one of this is made explicit in the decision”: at para 41. In this case, the [NAME] was explicit about why it was seeking corroboration from [NAME]: The Appellant argues that authorities have threatened him and his family since 2011. When asked about this at the [NAME] hearing, the Appellant testified that his father had received many threats and had told the Appellant that he must stop. I accept that the Appellant’s father told him to stop, but there is nothing before me that the Appellant actually saw his father being threatened. Even though I have found the Appellant to be credible, without corroboration from his father, I do not have to accept the Appellant’s word regarding threats. I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant’s father was not threatened by [NAME] in relation to the Appellant’s activities. [ 31 ] The [NAME] provided its rationale as to why without corroboration from his father, the [NAME] decided not to accept the Applicant’s word. I find no basis to interfere with this finding. [ 19 ] Therefore, even if I had found that the Officer required corroboration (which I have not), I would have come to the same conclusion as Justice Go did in [NAME] . [ 20 ] In my view, it was reasonable for the Officer to find that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence linking the [NAME] to the attacks. The police reports make no mention of the [NAME]. The Applicant’s own affidavit describes the attacks but does not explicitly state that they were carried out by the [NAME]. The Applicant did not provide an affidavit from his mother attaching the alleged threatening messages. [ 21 ] The Applicant next submits, in the alternative, that the [NAME] breached the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness by failing to hold a hearing. This argument is premised on the Officer having impugned the credibility of the Applicant’s affidavit evidence that his mother continued to receive threats. However, I have found above that the Officer did not make an adverse credibility finding in that regard.

Accordingly, a hearing was not required ( IRPA paragraph 113(b); Immigration and [NAME] , SOR/2002-227 section 167; [NAME] at paras 34-42; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1013 at para 48; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 361 at para 17). [ 22 ] Finally, the Applicant argues that the [NAME]’s state protection analysis cannot stand. The Applicant does not take issue with the [NAME]’s state protection analysis based on the objective documentary country conditions (beyond asserting that it is [NAME] in nature). Rather, he asserts that the Officer’s finding that a link between the new incidents and the [NAME] was not established is tied to the Officer’s state protection finding. Further, that the Officer’s finding that the Applicant’s own evidence shows that the police were responsive “cannot stand if one accepts that the attacks were perpetrated by the [NAME] as part of their blood feud” and that the second attack occurred after the first attack had been reported to the police demonstrates a lack of effective protection at the operational level. [ 23 ] I first note that this argument is premised on the Officer having erred in finding that a link to the [NAME] was not established. As explained above, I do not agree that the Officer erred in that regard. [ 24 ] In any event, and as the Respondent submits, [NAME] is a surrogate or substitute protection in the event of a failure of national protection. [NAME] are required to approach the state before seeking international protection ( Canada ([NAME]) v Ward , 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689 [ Ward ] at p 709; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 FCA 171 at para 41). Absent a complete breakdown of the state apparatus, it is generally presumed that a state is able to protect its citizens ( Ward p 724; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2024 FC 166 at para 32; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 966 [ [NAME] ] at para 46). To be adequate, state protection need not be perfect; it must be effective to a certain degree and the state must be both willing and able to protect. In essence, state protection must be adequate at the operational level. The standard for assessing state protection is not that of perfection or of guaranteed protection ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1081 at para 29; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 988 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 210 at para 47; [NAME] at para 24). [ 25 ] In his [NAME] application, the Applicant alleged the same risk of harm from the [NAME] and provided the attacks on his family’s home as evidence of new developments with respect to that risk. He again asserted that he would not be afforded state protection in Albania. [ 26 ] The Officer noted that police reports concerning these two incidents indicated that the police had responded. In that regard I note that the June 15, 2021, police certificate indicates that the report of firearm discharge at a storage unit was reported at 23:20 on June 14, 2021, and that the police “responded to the incident right away” . The certificate also states that bullet casings were taken from the scene, were sent for laboratory analysis than that there was an ongoing investigation. The May 29, 2024, police statement indicates that a call was received from the [NAME] on August 16, 2023, at 4:15 a.m. reporting suspicious activity. An emergency patrol was dispatched right away and located an explosive substance (TNT). Immediately after, [NAME] were able to deactivate the substance. Further, that an investigation team was set up to investigate the event and take the case to court. The Officer noted that the Applicant had not provided any updates on these police investigations. I note that there was no evidence in the record that the Applicant or his mother had reported the alleged threatening messages to the police. [ 27 ] I see no error in the [NAME]’s finding that police were responsive to the two reported incidents and that the Applicant had not rebutted the [NAME]’s prior finding on the availability of state protection. As indicated above, to be adequate state protection need not be perfect; it must be effective to a certain degree and the state must be both willing and able to protect. The Applicant’s evidence demonstrated this to be the case. [ 28 ] Further, and as the Respondent points out, the Officer did not end their state protection analysis there. The Officer considered the objective country conditions evidence which indicated that the number of blood feuds in Albania is decreasing, that those fearing such feuds do not generally face a risk of persecution or serious harm, and that the state is both willing and able to offer effective protection to those affected. The Officer found that the Applicant had not established a material change in the country conditions and the state’s ability to protect the Applicant since the [NAME]’s decision. [ 29 ] I agree with the Respondent that the [NAME]’s conclusion that the Applicant’s evidence ultimately did not rebut the [NAME]’s state protection findings is reasonable and rationally flows from the record and the law. [ 30 ] For the above reasons, the application [NAME] be dismissed.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-5911-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed; There shall be no order as to costs; and No question was proposed for certification and none arises. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5911-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 21, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: april 23, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent