Federal Court Rejects Refugee Claim Application

Date: 20260526 Docket: IMM-8789-25 Citation: 2026 FC 680 Montréal, Québec, May 26, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Background [ 1 ] The Applicants, [NAME] and her two adult children, [NAME] and [NAME], are citizens of India. [NAME] arrived in Canada as a visitor in 2017, followed a few months later by [NAME] and her husband, [NAME]. [NAME] subsequently obtained temporary residence status in Canada as a worker. [ 2 ] In October 2023, the Applicants claimed refugee protection on the basis that they cannot return to India because they would be targeted by [NAME], who had abused them in the past and threatened to kill them if they returned to India. At the time, the couple was separated, and [NAME] was still a temporary resident working in Canada. [ 3 ] Both the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] and the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] rejected the Applicants’ claim pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [NAME] concluded that the RPD was correct to find that the Applicants had not established a forward-looking risk of persecution from [NAME], his family, or based on [NAME]’s status as a single woman if returned to India. [ 4 ] The Applicants seek judicial review of [NAME]’s Decision. Their arguments are twofold. First, they claim [NAME] erred in assessing the forward-facing risk of persecution they face in India. Second, they claim [NAME] was unreasonable in its analysis regarding persecution [NAME] will face in India as a single mother. [ 5 ] The arguments fail for the reasons laid out below. A. Forward-facing Risk [ 6 ] In their memorandum of fact and law, the Applicants contend that the entire reasoning for [NAME]’s determination regarding the forward-facing risk of persecution was because the agent of persecution, [NAME], has not made any attempt to harm or threaten the Applicants since September 2023, or harmed or threatened [NAME]’s employer or the employer’s driver since May 2024. They claim [NAME]’s analysis was speculative in this regard. The Applicants maintain that [NAME] is still motivated in harming [NAME] but has not directly done so because of police protection in Canada. The Applicants argue that [NAME] erred by not considering the contrast in police protection between Canada and India. [ 7 ] Counsel for the Applicants did not pursue these arguments with any vigor in oral submissions and I find there is no merit to them. They are essentially a rehash of arguments already made to the RPD. [ 8 ] [NAME] accepted that [NAME] was an alcoholic and had abused his wife in the past despite police intervention. It noted that [NAME] had made no effort to contact the Applicants after they separated. While accepting that [NAME] had made threats to [NAME]’s employer and their driver, [NAME] considered this fact was outweighed by the fact that [NAME] was aware of the Applicants’ address and could have harmed them if he wished. [NAME] never acted on his threats. There was no evidence to suggest that [NAME] was effectively deterred by Canadian authorities or that he would follow the Applicants back to India. In the circumstances, it was open for [NAME] to conclude that it was unlikely that [NAME] changed his behaviour because of intervention by the police and that he would be motivated to persecute the Applicants in India when he had not persecuted them in Canada. B. Principal Applicant’s Status as a Single Woman [ 9 ] At the hearing, the Applicants focussed their arguments on [NAME]’s analysis of the status of [NAME] as a single woman in India. [ 10 ] The Applicants submit [NAME]’s entire analysis regarding persecution [NAME] will face in India as a single mother, who will be viewed as being divorced or abandoned by her husband, is based on the unreasonable expectation she could rely upon the goodwill of her adult children to live and avoid persecution in India. They claim that [NAME]’s entire reasoning in this respect is based upon personal speculation and conjecture. I disagree. [ 11 ] To receive refugee protection under section 96 of the IRPA, a person must show they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on subjective fear and objective evidence. [ADDRESS] has repeatedly held that persecution differs from harassment or discrimination, and that that discrimination may only amount to persecution in certain circumstances. Mistreatment rises to persecution when it is both serious and repetitive or systematic. Only showing discrimination is not enough to prove persecution. [ 12 ] The objective evidence in the National Documentation Package [NDP] for India indicates the prevalence of issues of domestic violence, prevalence of patriarchal attitudes, stigma towards single or divorced women, and challenges of obtaining employment or housing. The RPD found that the objective evidence on the vulnerabilities of widowed women or single women/mothers without family or male support did not apply to [NAME]’s situation, noting that although [NAME] was separated from her husband, she was not a mother of dependent children, without family or male support. The RPD added: …You all live together and support one another, including the adult male ([NAME]). Rather than a mother trying to support her and her minor children on a single income or a young woman on her own, you are a mixed-gender family unit of three working adults. [ 13 ] The Applicants did not challenge the above findings on appeal to [NAME]. They instead argued that “simply having her children with her in India” does not change the perception she will have to deal with from Indian society, being viewed as discarded by her husband. They also argued that it would be unreasonable to expect [NAME] to depend on the potential goodwill of her children for her survival or “help in other ways” from her two siblings. [ 14 ] [NAME] specifically noted that it did not expect [NAME] to rely on her children to live in India, merely that they could help mitigate some of the social stigma or challenges in finding employment or housing that [NAME] might face. This mitigation was noted with respect to challenges and discrimination that [NAME] may face, not persecution. Based on the evidence before [NAME], and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was not a stretch for [NAME] to find that the members of the family unit would continue to support each other if returned to India. [ 15 ] [NAME] agreed with the RPD’s finding that potential discrimination [NAME] may face in India did not rise to the level of persecution. [NAME] disagreed with [NAME]’s characterization of herself as a single mother with no support and found that the Applicants did not point to objective evidence that she would face a serious possibility of persecution. [ 16 ] In my view, [NAME] reasonably found that the Applicants did not point to objective evidence in country documentation to support their allegation that [NAME] faces a serious possibility of persecution in India. Indeed, they only provided evidence on general country conditions about potential challenges [NAME] might face but did not articulate how these challenges rose to the level of persecution beyond bald assertions. [ 17 ] I reject the Applicants’ argument that [NAME] did not cumulatively assess whether the discrimination [NAME] could face could rise to the level of persecution. [NAME] conducted an analysis of the challenges and difficulties submitted by the Applicants and made an overall finding that [NAME] would not face persecution. It did not conclude that [NAME] would not face persecution based on any one of the factors submitted, but after a cumulative consideration of each factor.

II. Conclusion [ 18 ] I have carefully considered the Applicants’ arguments. I do not agree that they, together or separately, show [NAME] made the alleged mistakes that would make its decision unreasonable. Its reasons, albeit brief, appropriately distinguished discrimination and hardship from persecution while properly examining the Applicants’ personal circumstances. [ 19 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 20 ] The parties did not propose a question for certification and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-8789-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8789-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: May 25, 2026

REASONS and judgment: [NAME] J. DATED: MAY 26, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicants Josef Beug For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Surrey, British Columbia For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent