Federal Court Rejects Refugee Claim Due to Credibility Issues

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260618 Docket: IMM-2415-25 Citation: 2026 FC 829 Ottawa, Ontario, June 18, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] [Applicant] is a citizen of Cameroon who claimed refugee protection in Canada alleging that he faced persecution at the hands of the Cameroonian military because he was perceived to support the Ambazonian Separatist Movement [ASM], a movement that advocates for the secession of the Anglophone regions in Cameroon. [ 2 ] For the reasons below, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant alleges that because he worked in Bafut (in the northwest anglophone region of Cameroon) on a project with a non-governmental organization who partnered with the World Food Program to distribute food to the population located in the “Mezam Division” and “Ngo-Ketunjia Division” of the country, he was accused by the military of supporting the ASM. [ 4 ] The Applicant alleged in his Basis of Claim [BOC] that he was arrested on January 2, 2023, beaten, molested, tortured, harassed and jailed for almost four months until April 20, 2023, because of his alleged political opinion in support of the ASM. He fled to Canada on May 27, 2023, after having obtained a Temporary Resident Visa [TRV] on April 7, 2023, and filed a claim for refugee protection on June 30, 2023. [ 5 ] The Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because he was not credible. The [NAME] also concluded that his claim had no credible basis pursuant to subsection 107(2) of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act (SC 2001, c. 27) [ IRPA ]. [ 6 ] The [NAME] ruled that the Applicant’s credibility was rebutted because of the numerous inconsistencies between his BOC, his statement at the Port of Entry into Canada, and his interview before the [NAME]. For example, he stated in his BOC that he was initially detained as of January 2, 2023, but testified during his interview that he was detained in November 2022 and then transferred to a central prison in January 2023. Moreover, the [NAME] report indicates that the Applicant was in Yaoundé (capital city of Cameroon) on December 19, 2022, to provide his biometrics in order to obtain his TRV, while according to his testimony, he was detained at that time. The [NAME] ruled that the Applicant’s explanation for these inconsistencies — including that his father was responsible to get his TRV, then “probably pulled his documents” from the prison enabling him to provide his fingerprints and biometrics, and that this was plausible because “everything is possible in Cameroon” — was not credible since no evidence was provided by the Applicant’s father to corroborate this explanation.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 7 ] The sole issue in the present matter is whether the Decision is reasonable. The applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [ [RESPONDENT] ]; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44).

IV. Analysis [ 8 ] The Applicant submits that the [NAME] committed a reviewable error by persistently focusing on the discrepancy concerning the dates of his detention and the dates of his visa application, despite his explanation that while he was detained at the police station, he was allowed to “walk around for fresh air” . The Applicant argues that the [NAME] should have received his explanation and put more emphasis on whether he could have been arrested and detained during the alleged period of time. The Applicant also contends that the [NAME] erred by assuming that the level of corruption in Cameroon is low and similar to Canada’s, thus failing to accept his explanation that his biometrics was recorded while he was being detained. [ 9 ] I disagree with Applicant’s arguments. [ 10 ] When claimants make a refugee claim, they are presumed to be telling the truth. However, this presumption may be rebutted when the claimant’s credibility is undermined, including when the [NAME] is not satisfied with the claimant’s explanations for his inconsistencies ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2024 FC 815 at para 21 [ [NAME] ] citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2018 FC 924 at para 21 [ [RESPONDENT] ]; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2010 FC 183 at para 19). [ 11 ] The [NAME] is better positioned to assess credibility, having the benefit of hearing the claimant’s testimony ( [APPELLANT] at para 22, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2012 FC 595 at para 10). A claimant’s credibility is “a question of fact that is central to the [NAME]’s expertise” and credibility findings should be owed considerable deference ( [NAME] at para 34 citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2020 FC 918 at para 28; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2018 FC 551 at paras 31–32; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2020 FC 704 at para 36). [ 12 ] Multiple contradictions, discrepancies or omissions on central facts of the refugee claim may also reasonably result in an adverse credibility finding ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2025 FC 440 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2015 FC 666 at para 11, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Employment [RESPONDENT]) , [1995] FCJ No 114 (QL) (FCA); [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2020 FC 990 at para 56, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2016 FC 178 at para 19; [RESPONDENT] at para 22). [ 13 ] Applying these principles in this case, I conclude that the [NAME]’s adverse credibility findings are reasonable. Having assessed the Certified Tribunal Record, I find that the Decision is reasonable on the basis of the inconsistencies identified by the [NAME] and on which it relied to support its Decision. Indeed, the Applicant stated in his BOC that he was arrested on January 2, 2023, but testified during his interview with the [NAME] that he was arrested in November 2022, detained and then transferred to a central prison in January 2023. That inconsistency on a material element of his narrative reasonably supports the [NAME]’s conclusion that the Applicant lacked credibility on a core element of his claim. The same can be said on his attempt to explain how he could have provided his biometrics on December 19, 2022, while allegedly being detained, which was not credible and not substantiated by corroborating evidence of his father. The contradictions are of such importance that it was open to the [NAME] to find that the explanations offered were not credible on core elements of the Applicant’s claim. [ 14 ] With regards to the [NAME] conclusion that the Applicant’s claim lacked a credible basis, subsection 107(2) of the IRPA provides that: Decision on Claim for Refugee Protection […] No credible basis (2) If the Refugee Protection Division is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision, it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim. Décision sur la demande d’asile […] Preuve (2) Si elle estime, en cas de rejet, qu’il n’a été présenté aucun élément de preuve crédible ou digne de foi sur lequel elle aurait pu fonder une décision favorable, la section doit faire état dans sa décision de l’absence de minimum de fondement de la demande. [ 15 ] As this Court has previously stated, a no credible basis finding differs from a negative credibility finding. The former occurs when the “[[NAME]] is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible basis on which it could have made a favourable decision […] by contrast, the latter goes to the reliability of evidence; a negative credibility finding is a determination that a source of evidence is not trustworthy in some way ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2018 FC 940 at para 42)” ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2025 FC 1025 at para 3). [ 16 ] It is not because a particular source of evidence is not trustworthy in some way that there cannot be any other evidence in the record that supports an applicant’s claim. A conclusion of “no credible basis” may only be made when there is no other such source of credible evidence that supports the claim. However, a negative finding on a claimant’s credibility may extend generally to other elements, including the supporting documents, and be sufficient for the [NAME] to determine that there is “no credible basis” to the claim as a whole ( [NAME] at paras 36-37; citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2016 FC 1375 at paras 26–29; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2015 FC 613 at para 37). [ 17 ] In the Applicant’s case, the contradictions between the information in his BOC, his testimony before the [NAME], his declarations at the Port of Entry, together with the limited evidence submitted (mainly pictures of the Applicant wearing a UNICEF vest with children and a copy of his degree), and the objective country condition evidence regarding the situation of anglophones in [NAME] — which asserts that “most of those [Anglophones] who advocate for federalism or [who] have not been tagged as sponsors or supporters of armed separatists, move in and out of Cameroon as they wish” (National Documentation Package on Cameroon item 13.2) — were factors that, cumulatively, reasonably led the [NAME] to conclude that the Applicant’s refugee claim had no credible basis. [ 18 ] Once the [NAME] found that the presumption of truthfulness was rebutted and that there was no independent or credible evidence that could “support the positive determination of his claim” , the [NAME] was able to conclude that the Applicant’s claim had “no credible basis” pursuant to section 107(2) (see [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2002 FCA 89 at para 19; [APPELLANT] at paras 35-36). [ 19 ] The Applicant’s arguments solely amount to a disagreement with the way in which the [NAME] weighed the evidence. In judicial review, an applicant’s disagreement with the decision marker’s factual findings is not sufficient to justify the Court’s intervention. The Applicant is asking the Court to engage in a treasure hunt for error and re-weigh the evidence ( [NAME] at paras 102, 125) . Absent of special circumstances, which do not arise here, the Court cannot interfere with the factual findings of the [NAME] upon judicial review.

V. Conclusion [ 20 ] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 21 ] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2415-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2415-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: [RESPONDENT] IN TORONTO (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 17, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 18, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The APPLICANT [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [RESPONDENT] LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto (Ontario) For The APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT