Federal Court Rejects Refugee Claim Judicial Review

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260608 Docket: IMM-3462-25 Citation: 2026 FC 752 Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [APPELLANT] is a citizen of Costa Rica. He seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] of the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] [IRB]. [NAME] confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] of the IRB that Mr. [APPELLANT] is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97(1) of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 2 ] [NAME]’s decision was procedurally fair and reasonable. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] Mr. [APPELLANT], his wife [NAME], and their daughter [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] arrived in Canada on July 14, 2023. They submitted a refugee claim several months later. [ 4 ] Ms. [NAME] worked as a primary school teacher in Costa Rica. In February 2023, she was assigned to teach at the [COMPANY] in Cariari, a district in Limón Province. [ 5 ] In March 2023, [NAME] [NAME] noticed that two [NAME] from her class were frequently absent. Following unsuccessful attempts to contact the [NAME], she prepared a report for the [NAME] [PANI], the government agency responsible for child welfare and the protection of children’s rights. Ms. [NAME] sent the [NAME] a text message informing her of her intention to submit the report. [ 6 ] According to Ms. [NAME] [NAME], on June 28, 2023, she received threatening text messages from the [NAME], who demanded that she not send the report to PANI. The mother claimed that she was related to the notorious drug trafficker “[NAME]” and warned Ms. [NAME] that if she did not comply, then she would suffer the same fate as a teacher from another school who had recently been murdered. [ 7 ] [NAME] rejected the family’s refugee claim on October 8, 2024. [NAME] noted that the claim had no nexus to a Convention ground and therefore assessed it under s 97(1) of the IRPA. [NAME] found that Ms. [NAME] story about the connection between the agent of harm and [NAME] was not credible. In particular, [NAME] determined that the text messages she submitted were likely not genuine. [ 8 ] [NAME] also noted that the family had obtained Electronic Travel Authorizations before allegedly receiving the threatening text messages. [NAME] inferred that the family had made plans to travel to Canada before receiving the threats. Finally, [NAME] found that adequate state protection was available to the family in Costa Rica. [ 9 ] The family appealed to [NAME]. [NAME] dismissed the appeal on January 22, 2025. [NAME] agreed with [NAME]’s determination that the text messages did not appear to be genuine. [NAME] also found that the text messages did not confirm that the [NAME] was connected to [NAME]. [NAME] noted the differences in appearance between the screenshots of the text messages: some included timestamps, while others did not. [NAME] concluded that the “fraudulent evidence reflects extremely poorly on their credibility” . [ 10 ] [NAME] agreed with [NAME]’s analysis of the timing of the family’s Electronic Travel Authorizations and found that they intended to travel to Canada before allegedly receiving the threats. Finally, [NAME] agreed with [NAME] that the family had failed to rebut the presumption that adequate state protection was available to them in Costa Rica. [ 11 ] On May 1, 2026, Ms. [APPELLANT] [NAME] and Ms. [APPELLANT] [NAME] discontinued this application due to their departure from Canada. Mr. [APPELLANT] has continued the application based on the allegations made by Ms. [NAME].

III. Issues [ 12 ] This application for judicial review raises the following issues: Was [NAME]’s decision procedurally fair? Was [NAME]’s decision reasonable? IV. Analysis A. Was [NAME]’s decision procedurally fair? [ 13 ] Procedural fairness is subject to a reviewing exercise best reflected in the correctness standard, although strictly speaking no standard of review is being applied. [ADDRESS] must examine the process followed by the decision maker and determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances ( [NAME] v [COMPANY] , 2024 FCA 172 at para 53; [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 44-56). [ 14 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] says that [NAME] made new credibility findings without giving him an opportunity to respond. He argues that [NAME] did not make a negative credibility finding regarding the inconsistent appearances of the screen shots of the text messages, and the adverse findings of [NAME] were therefore new. [NAME] found only that the text messages were “possibly inauthentic” , while [NAME] concluded that they were “likely fraudulent” . [ 15 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] relies on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 442, in which Justice Shirzad Ahmed said the following (at para 28): [ADDRESS] has found that where new issues arise on appeal, the decision-maker must give the parties an opportunity to respond as a matter of procedural fairness ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2015 FC 725 at para 71; see also discussion in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2021 FC 316 (“ [NAME] ”) at paras 15-24). In [NAME] , this Court remarked that a “new issue” is “one which constitutes a new ground or reasoning on which a decision-maker relies, other than the ground of appeal raised by the applicant, to support the valid or erroneous nature of the decision appealed from” (at para 18, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2016 FC 600 at para 25). [ 16 ] As Justice Roger Hughes held in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2015 FC 684, “if [NAME] chooses to take a frolic and venture into the record to make further substantive findings, it should give some sort of notice to the parties and give them an opportunity to make submissions” (at para 10). [ 17 ] [NAME] and [NAME] observed that the text messages did not mention a connection between the [NAME] and [NAME]. [NAME] and [NAME] also rejected Ms. [NAME] explanation for the different appearances of the screenshots of the text messages. [NAME] found as follows: When asked why the first set of messages sent by the PC show the date of June 28th but the response form [ sic ] [the mother] have [ sic ] no date and appears different from the messages sent on June 28th, the PC stated that she had to get the information from the phone company, and this was what they sent to them. The panel does not accept this explanation as reasonable. Firstly, the messages are from WhatsApp, and it would be reasonable to expect the PC to contact WhatsApp to obtain the messages and not her local phone company. Secondly, even if her local phone company was able to provide the information to her, it would be reasonable to expect them to provide it all in the same format. [ 18 ] [NAME] made similar findings regarding the appearance of the messages: The first set of messages contained the date of the conversation, and each message had a timestamp next to it. By contrast, the second page – containing the parent’s responses – had no such features. The [APPELLANT] struggled to explain this, and ultimately, her explanation made no sense at all. Even though the messages seemed to be photographs or screenshots of the conversation, the [APPELLANT] claimed that these did not come directly from her own phone. She claimed that they were sent to her by her local phone company in Costa Rica, upon her request. However, these were not SMS texts sent through her phone provider. Rather, they were sent over WhatsApp – an independent mobile phone application – as clearly marked on the page. [NAME] correctly found that this was not a reasonable explanation. [ 19 ] [NAME] found on a balance of probabilities that Ms. [NAME] [NAME] had provided non-genuine evidence to support the family’s claim and gave no weight to the text messages. [NAME] “agree[d] with [NAME], that the disclosed text messages are likely fraudulent” , and found that this reflected “extremely poorly on their credibility” . [ 20 ] [NAME] did not base its adverse credibility findings on “a new ground of reasoning” . Nor did it “take a frolic and venture into the record to make further substantive findings” . [NAME]’s decision was procedurally fair. B. Was [NAME]’s decision reasonable? [ 21 ] The merits of [NAME]’s decision are subject to review by this Court against the standard of reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ] 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” ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 22 ] 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 ( [NAME] at paras 85-86, citing [NAME] v [NAME] , 2008 SCC 9 at para 47). [ 23 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] says that [NAME] failed to consider corroborating evidence comprising letters of support that confirmed elements of Ms. [NAME] [NAME]’s narrative. He also argues that [NAME] applied the wrong test for the adequacy of state protection in Costa Rica. He maintains that [NAME]’s assessment of country condition evidence was unreasonable and ignored contradictory evidence provided by the family. This included the inability of the authorities to deal effectively with drug traffickers such as El Diablo. [ 24 ] Once it had determined that the threatening text messages were likely fraudulent, it was open to [NAME] to disregard the letters of support. The text messages were the only direct evidence of the threats allegedly made against [NAME] [APPELLANT]. The letters of support did nothing to substantiate the authenticity of the text messages. The only letters that confirmed the alleged threats consisted of hearsay statements by Ms. [NAME] mother and son that were derived from [NAME] [APPELLANT]’s own account of what occurred. [ 25 ] [NAME] found that [NAME] [APPELLANT] had “simply invented” the alleged threat from [APPELLANT] in an attempt to strengthen the refugee claim. The most [NAME] could accept was that she had been threatened by the [NAME] who were having difficulties at school. [ 26 ] [NAME] considered the evidence in the National Documentation Package for Costa Rica. Its conclusion that the family failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection fell within the range of acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law. It is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own opinion for that of the decision maker ( [NAME] at para 125).

V. Conclusion [ 27 ] 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-3462-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: FOTHERGILL J. DATED: June 8, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Calgary, Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent