Federal Court Rejects Refugee Protection Claim Due to Credibility Issues

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-8534-25 Citation: 2026 FC 809 Toronto, Ontario, June 16, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated March 18, 2025, by the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] of the [NAME] [[NAME]] dismissing the Applicant’s appeal and confirming the decision of the [NAME] [[NAME]] of the [NAME] to refuse the Applicant’s claim pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of Immigration and [NAME] Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 2 ] As explained in greater detail below, this application for judicial review is dismissed, because the Decision is reasonable.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria who fears persecution due to his alleged sexual orientation. [ 4 ] The Applicant asserts that he is a bisexual man. He claims that had a secret relationship with a customer in Nigeria [referred to in the Decision as K] from October 2021 to January 2024 and that, on January 24, 2024, [NAME] fiancée discovered the relationship by catching the Applicant and [APPELLANT] in [APPELLANT] house. The Applicant then hid in his brother-in-law’s home and subsequently came to Canada, using a visa that had been issued in July 2023, and applied for [NAME]. [ 5 ] The Applicant’s hearing before the [NAME] took place on December 3, 2024. [ 6 ] On December 21, 2024, the [NAME] communicated its decision dated December 20, 2024, refusing the Applicant’s claim for [NAME], with the determinative issue being credibility. [ 7 ] The Applicant appealed the [NAME]’s decision to [NAME].

III. Decision under Review [ 8 ] In the Decision, which is the subject of this application for judicial review, [NAME] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the [NAME] that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and subsection 97(1), respectfully, of IRPA. A. New Evidence Filed on Appeal [ 9 ] The Applicant submitted to [NAME] the following four documents as new evidence: an affidavit from the Applicant dated February 10, 2025 [Applicant’s Affidavit]; a letter from the [COMPANY] dated February 7, 2025; an affidavit dated January 31, 2025 [K’s Affidavit], with an associated identity document, being a Digital NIN Slip issued on December 29, 2024 [Identity Document]; and a letter dated February 8, 2025, from the Applicant’s alleged new same-sex partner in Canada, and the partner’s Ontario issued driver’s licence. [ 10 ] Pursuant to subsection 110(4) of IRPA, [NAME] considered the Applicant’s Affidavit as an explanation of why the Applicant believed the proposed new evidence should be admitted, but it refused to admit the rest of the new evidence. The following explanation for [NAME]’s reasoning relates to K’s Affidavit and the Identity Document, as these are the items of new evidence that the Applicant argues in this application were unreasonably excluded. [ 11 ] [NAME], [NAME] determined that the document was not credible. [NAME] concluded that [NAME] contradicted the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package [NDP] for Nigeria. The NDP identified that it was dangerous, and therefore not a standard practice, for a person to swear such an affidavit about sexual orientation that amounted to admitting to a crime, which the lawyer involved would be obliged to report. [NAME] noted that the risk to [APPELLANT] and the Applicant in executing such an affidavit would be very high, as well as the lack of an explanation as to how the lawyer was approached to have the document executed. In concluding that K’s Affidavit was inauthentic and therefore not credible, [NAME] also identified the following concerns with the appearance of the affidavit (at para 10): […] (a) its content is on a separate page from the notarized page, (b) the notarized page appears crumpled or having a texture that is different from the first page with the allegations, (c) its basic seal with no lawyer’s name, (d) no lawyer’s name listed anywhere in the affidavit, and (e) the alleged [NAME]’s and [NAME]’s signatures are dated February 5, 2025, yet the body of the affidavit states that it was sworn/affirmed by the [NAME] before the [NAME] on January 31, 2025 […]. [ 12 ] [NAME] also concluded that the timing of the Identity Document was highly questionable, noting that it was issued on December 29, 2024, approximately one week after the [NAME]’s decision, in a context in which the Applicant and [APPELLANT] had been exposed, [APPELLANT] was in hiding, and the Applicant believed he may have been arrested. [NAME] further noted that [NAME] did not provide information about his own actions between the time of discovery and the writing of the alleged affidavit. [NAME] also found it questionable that [NAME] would have chosen to approach the [NAME] in December 2024 to obtain the Identity Document, when [APPELLANT] stated that the Applicant had requested a supporting document in January 2025. [NAME] therefore found the Identity Document inadmissible. B. Credibility Concerns [ 13 ] [NAME] concluded that the Applicant had provided insufficient credible evidence to establish his core allegations. [NAME] referenced Chairperson’s Guideline 8: Accessibility to [NAME]’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the [NAME] [Guideline 9] [collectively, the Guidelines] but noted that adjudicators may nonetheless draw negative inferences from material inconsistencies or contradictions that have no reasonable explanation (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 406 at para 11). [ 14 ] Concerning the Applicant’s testimony about his past relationships with men, [NAME] found that it was undetailed, repetitive and rehearsed. In particular, [NAME] found that the testimony did not provide any significant details beyond repeating the Applicant’s BOC. Nor did the Applicant provide meaningful or persuasive testimony, beyond generic responses, when answering the [NAME]’s questions about details of the relationships. While considering the Applicant’s profile and nervousness, as well as the guidance provided in the Guidelines, [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that the Applicant’s responses to questions were not persuasive. Being concerned about the Applicant’s inability to meaningfully provide answers outside of the BOC narrative, [NAME] found that his responses were generic and repetitive because the relationships were not genuine. [ 15 ] In addition, while recognizing that the North American “coming out” narrative is not a universal or standard development process, [NAME] found the Applicant’s evidence as to his self-realization journey to be inconsistent, evolving and circular. [NAME] referenced the Guidelines , the fact that a SOGIESC individual’s self-awareness and self-acceptance of their SOGIESC may be a gradual and/or non-linear process, and that testifying can be difficult, particularly when one’s lived experience is in a country where mistreatment of SOGIESC individuals is supported. However, [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that these factors did not overcome the concerns about the Applicant’s inconsistent and unclear responses, casting doubt on his allegations as to his sexual orientation. [ 16 ] [NAME] found that the [NAME] had appropriately assessed the absence of any trustworthy and reliable corroborative evidence regarding the Applicant’s prior same-sex relationships, in conjunction with his limited and repetitive testimony. [NAME] also concluded that the remaining evidence (including evidence from relatives and [NAME]) did not establish the Applicant’s alleged profile and associated allegations. [ 17 ] [NAME] considered a [NAME]’s assessment [the Assessment], which outlined the Applicant’s self-reported occasional memory and concentration issues, but noted that no cognitive issues were identified or cognitive tests conducted. [NAME] observed that the Applicant scored in the moderate range for depression and displayed symptoms of emotional distancing and hypervigilance. [NAME] agreed with the [NAME]’s conclusion that the Assessment did not explain the identified credibility issues. [ 18 ] In conclusion, [NAME] found that the Appellant had not adduced sufficient credible evidence to establish his alleged profile and associated allegations.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 19 ] The Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law identifies the following issues for the Court’s determination: A. [NAME] unreasonably excluded K’s Affidavit and the Identity Document under s 110(4) of IRPA; B. [NAME] unreasonably failed to meaningfully apply Guideline 9 in its credibility analysis; C. [NAME] unreasonably affirmed the [NAME]’s credibility findings based on expectations of emotionally detailed, linear self-realization and relationship testimony; D. [NAME] unreasonably failed to meaningfully engage with trauma, emotional distancing, hypervigilance and the [NAME] evidence; and E. Whether the Decision satisfies the requirements for reasonable administrative decision-making identified in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ]. [ 20 ] As is implicit in the above articulation of the issues, they are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, as informed by [NAME] .

V. Analysis A. [NAME] unreasonably excluded K’s Affidavit and the Identity Document under s 110(4) of IRPA [ 21 ] The Applicant acknowledges that [NAME] correctly identified the legal framework for the admission of new evidence. However, he argues that [NAME] failed to reasonably apply that framework in the context of a SOGIESC claim involving Nigeria, where membership in that community is criminalized. He also submits that it was unreasonable for [NAME] to reject the Applicant’s assertion of risk in part based on the lack of corroborative evidence, while also rejecting the corroborative evidence because it arose in the context of the risk that SOGIESC individuals face in Nigeria. [ 22 ] As the Respondent submits, an appeal to [NAME] is not an opportunity to bolster a deficient record. Rather, the Applicant bears the burden to ensure that all available evidence is presented to the [NAME] ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1899 at para 32). [NAME] noted the legal risks associated with generation of K’s affidavit, as well as the lack of evidence as to how arrangements were made to generate that document. [NAME] further identified irregularities in the document itself, which contributed to the adverse credibility finding. As explained earlier in these Reasons, [NAME] also found that the timing of the Identity Document was highly questionable. [ 23 ] I find this reasoning intelligible and supported by the evidence. It was not just the generation of K’s Affidavit in the context of Nigerian criminalization that [NAME] took into account, but the Applicant’s failure to provide evidence that would explain how the new evidence was procured in such context. Coupled with the finding surrounding documentary irregularities in the new evidence, I find nothing unreasonable in this aspect of the Decision. B. [NAME] unreasonably failed to meaningfully apply Guideline 9 in its credibility analysis [ 24 ] The Applicant recognizes that [NAME] expressly acknowledged that the Guidelines apply and explained the guidance provided thereby. However, he argues that the Decision does not demonstrate an application of Guideline 9 in particular, in that [NAME] upheld the [NAME]’s adverse credibility findings because the Applicant could not provide emotionally detailed answers about how relationships felt, what his fondest memories were, how secrecy felt, and how his bisexual self-realization unfolded. The Applicant submits that [NAME] unreasonably expected him to narrate his sexual identity and intimate relationships in a reflective, emotionally detailed and linear manner. [ 25 ] I do not agree with this characterization of [NAME]’s reasoning. The Decision does not demonstrate that [NAME] expected a linear narrative [NAME]’s principal concerns with respect to detail in the Applicant’s testimony related to the evolving nature and circularity of the Applicant’s testimony, as well as both inconsistencies therein and the inability of the Applicant to add detail beyond that which was set out in his BOC. With respect to the BOC, it is of course not problematic that the Applicant’s testimony was consistent with his BOC narrative. However, I find intelligible [NAME]’s credibility concern about the Applicant’s inability to add any significant detail beyond his written narrative. [ 26 ] I find nothing unreasonable in [NAME]’s application of the Guidelines. C. [NAME] unreasonably affirmed the [NAME]’s credibility findings based on expectations of emotionally detailed, linear self-realization and relationship testimony [ 27 ] Under this issue, Applicant advances arguments similar to those canvassed under the issue immediately above, which I again find do not undermine the reasonableness of the Decision. D. [NAME] unreasonably failed to meaningfully engage with trauma, emotional distancing, hypervigilance and the [NAME] evidence [ 28 ] In arguing that [NAME]’s treatment of the Assessment was unreasonable, the Applicant notes that [NAME] acknowledged the [NAME]’s indication of the Applicant self reporting occasional memory and concentration issues and displaying symptoms of emotional distancing and hypervigilance. In that context, the Applicant argues that the Decision is unintelligible, because [NAME] failed to articulate why these symptoms did not explain the deficiencies in the Applicant’s testimony. [ 29 ] I accept that [NAME] noted the [NAME]’s observations and found that they did not explain the credibility concerns identified in the Applicant’s testimony, without providing a detailed analysis to support that conclusion. However, given the nature of the deficiencies in the Applicant’s testimony, I find that the Applicant has not identified any express link in the Assessment between the [NAME]’s observations and those deficiencies that would require [NAME] to provide a detailed explanation of its conclusion in order to have intelligibly addressed the [NAME]’s observations. Again, I do not find the Applicant’s arguments to undermine the reasonableness of the Decision. E. Whether the Decision satisfies the requirements for reasonable administrative decision-making identified in [APPELLANT] [ 30 ] Under this issue, the Applicant again advances arguments similar to those canvassed under other issues above, which I find do not undermine the reasonableness of the Decision.

VI. Conclusion [ 31 ] Having considered the parties’ arguments, I find that the Decision is reasonable. As such, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. Neither party proposed any question for certification for appeal, and none is stated.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-8534-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified for appeal. "Richard F. Southcott" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8534-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 15, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: SOUTHCOTT J. DATED: JUNE 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [APPELLANT], [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent