Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of Refugee Claim Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260612 Docket: IMM-5093-25 Citation: 2026 FC 795 Ottawa, Ontario, June 12, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division ( “[NAME]” ), dated January 13, 2025, which ultimately affirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division ( “[NAME]” ), finding that the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 (the “ IRPA ” ) . The determinative issue was the Applicant’s credibility. [ 2 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] should have convened an oral hearing to address its new credibility findings and that the [NAME] erred in relying on inconsistencies between his later submissions and the point of entry ( “POE” ) interview. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, I find that the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable and was rendered in a procedurally fair manner. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a 38-year-old citizen of India. [ 5 ] In November 2022, he entered Canada on a temporary resident visa and claimed refugee protection at the POE in the Toronto Pearson International Airport. During the POE interview, the Applicant stated that his life was in danger because he was a social worker associated with the [NAME] and a [NAME] working to prevent child labour. [ 6 ] On July 6, 2023, the Applicant wrote a Basis of Claim ( “BOC” ) narrative. This narrative described that the Applicant was part of the [NAME] ( “[NAME]” ) and faces a danger to his life due to his opposition to the ruling party, the [NAME]. The Applicant’s BOC narrative describes two attacks against him and his family, occurring in February and March 2022. [ 7 ] In a decision dated August 19, 2024, the [NAME] refused the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection. The determinative issue was the Applicant’s credibility. Cumulatively, the [NAME] found that the inconsistencies within the evidence provided could not establish the Applicant’s political profile. The Applicant appealed this decision to the [NAME]. [ 8 ] In a letter dated December 10, 2024, the [NAME] advised the applicant that they would consider credibility issues that they stated were not addressed by the [NAME]. These included concerns with the date on which a lawyer, who the Applicant had allegedly consulted, began to practice law, the inconsistencies of the letterhead for the letters submitted allegedly from [NAME] members, the lack of consistency regarding injuries described in the medical note, the existence of a medical note after the Applicant stated he was hospitalized in March 2022, and questions regarding the reason that the Applicant is not subscribed to the social media content of the [NAME]. [ 9 ] In a response dated January 2, 2025, the Applicant submitted that the evidence against which the [NAME] brought credibility concerns were previously addressed and accepted on the record by the [NAME], and that a new hearing should be ordered if the Applicant’s credibility would be determined based on this evidence. Regarding the letters from a lawyer that the Applicant consulted in India and alleged members of the [NAME], the Applicant stated that these letters were provided to the Applicant as they were presented to the [NAME]. The Applicant further stated that he had not submitted that he received medical care in March 2022, and thus he did not supply any medical documents. The Applicant also maintained that his social media account has not been active since August 2024. [ 10 ] In the decision dated January 13, 2025, the [NAME] determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In reaching this conclusion, the [NAME] found that it did not have the authority to conduct an oral hearing because the Applicant submitted no new evidence. Nevertheless, the [NAME] maintained that an oral hearing was not warranted because credibility concerns were raised with the [NAME] and the Applicant responded on January 2, 2025, to the credibility concerns the [NAME] raised. [ 11 ] The [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that the inconsistencies between the Applicant’s POE interview and BOC narrative were too great to overcome, even given the caution taken against relying on the POE interview. Specifically, the [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that it was reasonable to expect the Applicant to mention his activism against child labour in his BOC narrative or to mention his political involvement in the POE interview. [ 12 ] The [NAME] further found that the Applicant provided inconsistent evidence about the injuries he sustained and the timing of the assault against him. In particular, the [NAME] noted that the medical note provided did not mention a broken nose or internal injuries, even though the Applicant had described both these injuries in his BOC narrative. Additionally, the [NAME] found that it was reasonable to expect a medical note for the alleged attack in March 2022 because the Applicant had stated that he was hospitalized from this attack. [ 13 ] The [NAME] also found that the letters from a lawyer that the Applicant consulted in India and the letters from fellow [NAME] members are likely not genuine. The [NAME] noted that the letter head on the [NAME] letters was inconsistent and the letters did not have a consistent spelling of the party’s name. The [NAME] also noted that the Applicant had not satisfactorily explained why the lawyer he allegedly consulted in 2022 was qualified to practice law only in 2023. The [NAME] further concluded that the banner and membership card from the [NAME] could not establish the Applicant’s political profile because, as the [NAME] noted, these are easily forged. The [NAME] also noted that the Applicant had not explained why he was not following [NAME] content on his social media. [ 14 ] Ultimately, the [NAME] found that the Applicant’s explanations were insufficient to assuage these credibility concerns. Likewise, the affidavits from the Applicant’s friends and family could not alleviate these concerns. Since the [NAME] found that credibility was the determinative issue, the [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that it was unnecessary to address state protection. [ 15 ] This is the decision presently under review.

III. Issues and Standards of Review [ 16 ] The issues raised in this application are whether the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable and was rendered in a procedurally fair manner. [ 17 ] The applicable standard of review for the merits is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 ( “ [NAME] ” ). [ 18 ] The issue of procedural fairness is to be reviewed on the correctness standard ( Mission Institution v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General ), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 37-56 ( “ Canadian Pacific Railway Company ” ); Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). I find that this conclusion accords with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in [NAME] (at paras 16-17). [ 19 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( [NAME] at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( [NAME] at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker ( [NAME] at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( [NAME] at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 20 ] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( [NAME] at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( [NAME] at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 21 ] Correctness, by contrast, is a non-deferential standard of review. The central question for issues of procedural fairness is whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances, including the factors enumerated in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 (at paras 21-28; see also Canadian Pacific Railway Company at para 54).

IV. Analysis A. The [NAME]’s Decision was Procedurally Fair [ 22 ] Relying on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 911 ( “ [NAME] ” ), and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 CF 147 ( “ [APPELLANT] ” ), the Applicant submits that the [NAME] should have convened an oral hearing because it made new credibility findings as compared to the [NAME]. The Applicant further submits that he was not notified of all the credibility concerns at issue in the proceeding. In particular, he notes that the letter from the [NAME] dated December 10, 2024, had not specifically raised that a political membership card was easily forged. [ 23 ] The Respondent submits that the [NAME] notified the Applicant of the credibility concerns raised. [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1422 ( “ [RESPONDENT] ” ), the Respondent maintains that the [NAME] was permitted to assess previously determined credibility concerns raised by the [NAME] without a hearing or notification. [ 24 ] I agree with the Respondent. The Applicant was aware of all the credibility concerns that the [NAME] relied upon prior to making his final submissions on January 2, 2025. [ 25 ] This is unlike the context in [NAME] and [NAME] , where new evidence was admitted by the [NAME], either from the applicant or from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that specifically addressed the credibility concerns raised by the [NAME] ( [NAME] at para 19; [NAME] at para 2). [ 26 ] In the context where no new evidence is presented before the [NAME], this Court has generally held that it is unfair for the [NAME] to make new adverse credibility findings against an applicant without notifying them and giving them an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 665 at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1960 at para 30; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1048 at para 10). [ 27 ] However, where credibility was a concern before the [NAME], the [NAME]’s findings were contested on appeal, and the [NAME]’s additional findings arise from the evidentiary record, this Court has found that these are not “new” findings requiring the same level of notification to the applicant ( [NAME] at paras 17, 21). [ 28 ] In the case before me, the [NAME] had found credibility to be the central issue in its determination. The Applicant had challenged this finding on appeal, and the [NAME]’s concerns arise solely from the record before it. As such, there was no need for the [NAME] to notify the Applicant that it intended to agree with negative credibility findings based on the materials the [NAME] used to support its negative credibility finding. These materials included the country condition documentation showing that it was easy to forge a political party membership card, which was raised by both the [NAME] at paragraph 34 of its decision and by the [NAME] at paragraph 43 of its decision. The [NAME]’s decision not to provide notification about issues that form the basis for the [NAME]’s determination and are at issue on appeal therefore reflects this Court’s previous decisions regarding the level of procedural fairness required ( [NAME] at paras 18-21; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 178 at para 31). [ 29 ] Although the Applicant would have been aware that his credibility was generally at issue on appeal, the [NAME] duly provided a notification to the Applicant outlining its concerns that were not specifically the basis for the [NAME]’s credibility determination ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 258 at para 28). For example, the [NAME] had determined that the letter from a lawyer the Applicant allegedly consulted could not overcome the [NAME]’s adverse credibility findings because the letter was based solely on a secondary account of the events. The [NAME]’s analysis used this lawyer’s letter to draw an adverse inference regarding the Applicant’s credibility and, as this was an unassessed issue before the [NAME], the [NAME] raised the issue in the letter it wrote to the Applicant dated December 10, 2024. [ 30 ] Because the [NAME] provided the Applicant with a meaningful opportunity to respond to the [NAME] and the new concerns raised through the details provided in the notification letter, I find that the [NAME] did not breach the Applicant’s procedural fairness rights ( He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1316 at para 78). B. The [NAME]’s Decision is Reasonable [ 31 ] The Applicant submits that the [NAME] improperly disregarded his explanations for the inconsistencies in his POE interview as compared to his BOC narrative and subsequent testimony. The Applicant maintains that his political profile is credible because he was able to consistently testify about [NAME] party ideology. Maintaining that it is more likely that he would be persecuted if returned to India, the Applicant submits that the [NAME] should have evaluated his access to state protection and an internal flight alternative ( “IFA” ). The Applicant submits that the [NAME]’s failure to engage in such an analysis rebuts the presumption that the [NAME] considered all of the evidence before them. [ 32 ] The Respondent maintains that the [NAME] had a reasonable basis on which to make an adverse credibility finding given the inconsistent evidence. The Respondent further submits that the [NAME] reasonably declined to consider the issues of state protection and an IFA because the determinative issue was credibility. [ 33 ] In my view, the [NAME]’s decision grapples with the evidence on the record and conducts an analysis reflecting the hallmarks of reasonableness. [ 34 ] Regarding the discrepancies between the POE interview notes and the Applicant’s BOC narrative, I find that the [NAME] had due consideration for the pitfalls of relying on POE interview notes. The [NAME] noted that the Applicant was told to be truthful and to provide details in the POE interview and that the questions posed during the POE interview were clear. The [NAME] then cited several cases from this Court to acknowledge that POE interview notes do not undermine an applicant’s credibility on the sole basis that they lack detail ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 8 at para 51). The [NAME] specifically cited [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 38 ( “ [NAME] ” ), which cautions against making credibility findings based on inconsistencies between the POE notes and later testimony unless they are based on crucial elements ( [NAME] at paras 39, 42). [ 35 ] However, the [NAME] found that, if these pitfalls are avoided, the POE interview notes may be a tool to assist the [NAME] and [NAME] to test the credibility of an applicant ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1410 at para 23). In [NAME] , Justice Kane found that the [NAME] reasonably determined that the omissions from the applicant’s POE responses were key incidents that the applicant later relied upon for his refugee claim (at para 25). Likewise, I note that the [NAME]’s comparison between the Applicant’s POE interview responses and his later submission reveals a difference that is not minor or microscopic. Rather, the [NAME] noted that the entirety of the reason why the Applicant alleges he is targeted in India changed. This inconsistency was put to the Applicant before the [NAME], but his explanation that the [NAME] where he worked was in association with the [NAME] was not sufficient to explain the inconsistency for the [NAME] or the [NAME]. The [NAME] found no evidence to support that the [NAME] was associated with the [NAME] or a [NAME] related to the prevention of child labour. I find that the [NAME] reasonably determined that the inconsistency between the POE interview and the Applicant’s later statements was major and the [NAME] reasonably based its credibility finding in part on this inconsistency ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 583 at para 25). [ 36 ] As the Applicant’s credibility was the determinative issue before the [NAME], I also find no error in the [NAME]’s decision to decline to assess the state protection in India or whether an IFA was available to the Applicant. Where the credibility finding undermines the basis of the alleged risks under section 96 and 97 of the IRPA , as is the case here, it is reasonable for the [NAME] to determine that it is dispositive of the Applicant’s claim ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 325 at para 18; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 20 at paras 18-19). [ 37 ] Accordingly, I find that the [NAME]’s decision meaningfully engaged with the evidentiary record and applied appropriate caution in its reasoning.

V. Conclusion [ 38 ] For these reasons, I find that there is no legal basis warranting this Court’s intervention in the [NAME]’s determination. Its process provided the Applicant with a full and fair opportunity to meaningfully respond to the credibility concerns raised and its reasoning reflects the factual and legal context applicable to this matter. Consequently, I dismiss this application for judicial review. [ 39 ] The parties did not raise a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-5093-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. “[NAME].” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-5093-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 12, 2026 APPEARANCES: [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME] [APPELLANT] and Solicitors Mississauga, [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent