Federal Court Rejects Refugee Protection Claim Due to Insufficient Evidence

Date: 20260227 Docket: IMM-6041-25 Citation: 2026 FC 274 Ottawa, Ontario, February 27, 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 Jamaica. She seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the [NAME] [[NAME]]. [NAME] confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the [NAME] 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] says that she fled Jamaica because she was severely abused by her former husband. She applied to work on a farm in Canada and arrived in this country in June 2021. She claims that she was abused while working on the farm. She made an inland claim for refugee protection in July 2023. [ 3 ] [NAME]’s former husband died on August 24, 2024. At the hearing before the RPD, [NAME] identified a new risk arising from her former husband’s leadership role in the “[NAME]” . She claimed to fear persecution by her former husband’s family and members of his gang. [ 4 ] The RPD rejected [NAME]’s claim on October 29, 2024. The RPD accepted that [NAME] had been abused by her former husband, but found that the remainder of her claims lacked credibility. The RPD rejected [NAME]’s assertion that her former husband was a gang leader. The RPD found that [NAME] did not have a good reason for omitting this information from her basis of claim [BOC] form or amendments to her narrative. The RPD held there was no credible risk from her former husband’s family, and that [NAME] would not face gender-related persecution or personalized risk based on her status as a single woman. [NAME] appealed to [NAME]. [ 5 ] [NAME] dismissed [NAME]’s appeal on February 21, 2025. [NAME] agreed that there was insufficient evidence to establish that her former husband was a leader of the [NAME]. [NAME] noted that the only evidence of her former husband’s involvement in the gang was an unsourced one-page media headline that “[NAME]” had been arrested, and her testimony that she overheard a conversation in 2008 during which her former husband mentioned his involvement in the [NAME]. [ 6 ] [NAME] also concluded that [NAME] did not face a forward-looking risk in Jamaica. [NAME] admitted new evidence of a note from her son reporting that a man had come to the family home and asked about her. The note was accompanied by a photograph of the man. [NAME] concluded that this did not support the existence of the [NAME], the involvement of [NAME]’s former husband in the gang, or the allegation that she would face persecution if she returned to Jamaica. [ 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 ] In oral submissions, [NAME]’s counsel limited her challenge to [NAME]’s decision to a single ground: [NAME] accepted (at para 12 of its decision) that [NAME]’s failure to disclose in her BOC form or amendments to her narrative that her former husband was a leader of a dangerous gang may have been due to the trauma she experienced as a victim of domestic violence. It was therefore inconsistent for [NAME] to find (at para 14 of its decision) that there was insufficient evidence on the record to establish that her former husband was a leader of the [NAME]. [NAME] argues that [NAME] did not properly apply the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the [NAME] [Gender Guidelines]. [ 10 ] The Respondent replies that the Gender Guidelines cannot be relied upon to cure all deficiencies in an applicant’s claim or evidence (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 1244 at para 54). [NAME]’s assessment of the evidence of the alleged involvement of [NAME]’s former husband in the [NAME] and finding that there was no forward-looking risk were both reasonable. [ 11 ] [NAME] provided very few details of the conversation she claimed to have overheard regarding her former husband’s involvement in the [NAME]. It was open to [NAME] to conclude that the unsourced media headline was not sufficient to prove her allegations. [NAME] also noted the lack of objective evidence regarding the gang’s existence. It is not for this Court to reweigh the evidence ( Vavilov at para 125). [ 12 ] [NAME] reasonably concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a forward-looking risk to [NAME] in Jamaica. [NAME] accepted her new evidence of a visit to the family home by an unknown man, but reasonably determined that this did not support the existence of the [NAME], the involvement of [NAME]’s former husband in the gang, or the allegation that she will be persecuted by her former husband’s family or gang members if she returns to Jamaica. [ 13 ] 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-6041-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: February 16, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: FOTHERGILL J. DATED: February 27, 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