Federal Court Rejects Refugee Claim Due to Lack of Evidence

Date: 20260306 Docket: IMM-6339-25 Citation: 2026 FC 312 Ottawa, Ontario, March 6, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] [NAME] is a citizen of Nigeria. She seeks judicial of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. [NAME] confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the IRB that [NAME] is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27. [ 2 ] [NAME] was born in Lagos, Nigeria on April 21, 1993. Her former husband was a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra [[NAME]], a separatist organization that advocates for the independence of a region of Nigeria inhabited primarily by the Igbo people. The [NAME] has been designated as a terrorist organization by the Nigerian government. [NAME] says that her former husband was killed by the [NAME] in August 2021. [ 3 ] On October 10, 2022, Nigerian police visited [NAME]’s mother’s home in Umuaka, Nigeria. She says they intended to arrest her, but she was attending a wedding elsewhere. Her mother informed her of the visit and advised her against returning home. [NAME] fled to Lagos. She stayed there until May 2023, when she was smuggled out of Nigeria with the help of a travel agent. [ 4 ] [NAME] arrived in Canada in May 2023 and claimed refugee protection. She says that the Nigerian police have continued to pursue her due to her imputed political opinion as a perceived member or supporter of the [NAME]. [ 5 ] The RPD rejected [NAME]’s refugee claim. The RPD found that her former husband’s death certificate did not establish his membership in the [NAME]. [NAME] testified that the police attended her mother’s home in December 2022, January 2023, and March 2023, but her basis of claim [BOC] form and her mother’s supporting letter did not indicate the same dates. The RPD concluded that the visits from the police did not happen. The RPD also found that [NAME] did not fit the profile of a person the Nigerian government would consider a threat. [ 6 ] [NAME] appealed to [NAME]. [NAME] accepted that [NAME]’s former husband was a member of the [NAME] and was killed by the [NAME]. [NAME] nevertheless agreed with the RPD that [NAME] does not face a forward-facing risk in Nigeria. [NAME] noted that her BOC form did not mention visits from the police in December 2022, January 2023, and March 2023, and there was no reasonable explanation for their omission. [NAME] accepted that the police had visited her mother’s home in October 2022, but found there was insufficient evidence of ongoing interest by the authorities. Finally, [NAME] concluded that the preponderance of the documentary evidence suggested that relatives of [NAME] are not considered threats by the [NAME]. [ 7 ] [NAME]’s decision is subject to review by this Court against the standard of reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at para 10). [ADDRESS] will intervene only where “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” ( Vavilov at para 100). [ 8 ] The criteria of “justification, intelligibility and transparency” are met if the reasons allow the Court to understand why the decision was made, and determine whether the decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law ( Vavilov at paras 85-86, citing [NAME] v [NAME] , 2008 SCC 9 at para 47). [ 9 ] [NAME] submits that [NAME] failed to reassess her credibility and forward-looking risk after it accepted that her former husband was a member of the [NAME] and killed by the [NAME]. She says that [NAME]’s acceptance that the police visited her mother’s home in October 2022 should have been sufficient to establish a serious possibility of future harm. She maintains that [NAME] failed to properly consider the risks she faced not only as a relative of an [NAME] member, but also as someone who was perceived to be a member herself. She argues that [NAME] misconstrued the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package [NDP], and unreasonably insisted she provide evidence that she is currently being targeted by the [NAME]. [ 10 ] The Respondent replies that [NAME] properly reassessed [NAME]’s credibility and forward-looking risk after reversing some of the RPD’s findings. [NAME] reasonably found that the single police visit to her mother’s house in October 2022 was not sufficient to establish a forward-looking risk. [NAME] reasonably rejected the argument that [NAME] would be persecuted on the ground of her imputed political opinion as a perceived supporter or member of the [NAME], and [NAME]’s interpretation of the NDP documentation was reasonable. [ 11 ] I agree with the Respondent. [ 12 ] [NAME] accepted that [NAME]’s former husband was a member of the [NAME] and killed by the [NAME], it proceeded to conduct a new assessment of her credibility and forward-looking risk. [NAME], like the RPD, found that [NAME]’s inability to explain why her BOC form did not mention the police visits in December 2022, January 2023, and March 2023 undermined her credibility. It was open to [NAME] to draw an adverse credibility inference from the omission of these core allegations ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1732 at para 25). [ 13 ] [NAME] did not dispute that the Nigerian police had visited [NAME]’s mother’s home in October 2022, but found this to be insufficient to establish a forward-looking risk of persecution. [NAME] explained and justified its conclusion as follows: However, all things considered, this single visit does not establish a forward-looking risk of persecution or serious harm. There is insufficient credible evidence that the Nigerian police or authorities made any further enquiries about her, or searched for her, during the more than two years that have passed since the police went to her mother’s home. The Appellant was never a member of the [NAME] or involved with the organization in any fashion, and she has not established that the Nigerian police or authorities perceive her to be a member of the organization or movement. The balance of the objective documentary evidence indicates that relatives of [NAME], even relatives who are considered [NAME] supporters, are not perceived by the [NAME] as a threat. [ 14 ] Contrary to [NAME]’s submissions, [NAME]’s reasons do not suggest that it required her to provide evidence that she is currently being targeted by the [NAME]. Rather, [NAME] found that a single police visit was insufficient to establish a forward-looking risk. This conclusion was reasonably open to [NAME]. [ 15 ] [NAME] also found there was no evidence that the [NAME] perceive [NAME] to be a supporter or member of the [NAME]. Again, it was reasonable for [NAME] to conclude that a single police visit to her mother’s home was insufficient to establish that state authorities had imputed her former husband’s political opinions to her. [ 16 ] [NAME] reasonably assessed the documentation in the NDP to support its conclusion that relatives of [NAME] are not considered threats by the [NAME]. [NAME] noted that there was only one source that stated relatives of low-level [NAME] may be arrested and detained by the [NAME]. The source was the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra, also known as MASSOB, an advocacy organization. [NAME] found that the remaining evidence indicated that only [NAME] involved in violence and criminal activities would be of interest to the authorities, and ordinary [NAME] or sympathizers are not at risk. This evidence came from reliable sources, such as the United Kingdom Home Office. [ 17 ] [ADDRESS]’s role is not to reweigh the country condition evidence ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 799 at para 39). [NAME]’s conclusions were reasonable and justified by its reasons. [ 18 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed that a question be certified for appeal.

JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. “Simon Fothergill” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6339-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: February 19, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: FOTHERGILL J. DATED: March 6, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent