Federal Court Rejects Refugee Protection Claim Due to Lack of Credibility

Date: 20260520 Docket: IMM-20436-24 Citation: 2026 FC 641 Ottawa, Ontario, May 20, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division ([NAME]), dismissing his appeal of the Refugee Protection Division’s (RPD) decision finding he is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [ 2 ] [NAME] decision rests on its findings that the Applicant’s evidence lacked credibility. The Applicant argues that these findings are unreasonable, and that he was denied procedural fairness because [NAME] rested one of its findings on a new issue without giving him notice or an opportunity to respond. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, I find that the decision is reasonable and the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness. The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

I. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Rwanda who came to Canada in September 2023 and claimed refugee protection. He alleges he fears the [NAME], specifically the [NAME] ([NAME]) and the [NAME] ([NAME]). [ 5 ] The Applicant says he was awarded a government contract to install solar panels on government-owned farms but was then asked to pay a bribe in order to proceed with the contract. He says he reported the man who demanded the bribe to the [NAME]. He claims he then received a summons asking him to report to the [NAME]. After doing so, the [NAME] allegedly informed him that he had been accused of bribery by this individual. He says the [NAME] then took away the government contract and seized his equipment, some of which he had purchased with his own funds. [ 6 ] The Applicant lodged a complaint with the [NAME]. He also told the man who demanded the bribe that he would take his story to the media. After that, he says he was kidnapped by this individual and two members of the [NAME], who blindfolded and detained him for a week, during which time he was tortured and physically assaulted several times. [ 7 ] The Applicant says he was released on condition that he agree to join the [NAME]. His kidnappers forced him to fill out an application and said he would be contacted about training dates. [ 8 ] After his release, the Applicant was treated in hospital for his injuries. He started military training camp in February 2023 and continued for two months before being sent home; he was told training would resume in October. The Applicant never returned to the military, and instead left for Canada in September 2023, where he claimed refugee protection. [ 9 ] The RPD rejected the Applicant’s claim. The Applicant then appealed to [NAME]. He argued that the RPD conducted a microscopic examination of the evidence and was overzealous in determining credibility. In particular, the Applicant argued that the RPD erred in impugning his credibility due to several minor problems with his evidence, and in not addressing his claim that he feared being sent to serve the [NAME] in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). [ 10 ] [NAME] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, finding that his evidence lacked credibility on a number of key points, summarized below: Summons lacked credibility : The Applicant submitted a summons to corroborate that he was called to attend the [NAME]. The RPD found that the summons was lacking in credibility because it contained numerous errors, including citing the wrong laws and incorrect references to the laws. [NAME] found that the RPD was correct in finding the summons lacked credibility. Unclear evidence about detention : [NAME] disagreed with the RPD’s finding that the Applicant’s credibility was diminished because he waited three days before seeking medical treatment after allegedly being detained and tortured. However, [NAME] agreed with the RPD that the Applicant’s credibility was impugned because he was not clear about who had detained him. In his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, he indicated that he was detained by the [NAME], but he testified at his hearing that it was the [NAME]. The RPD noted that these are two separate entities and pointed out that the Applicant referred to them separately in his BOC narrative. [NAME] agreed that the Applicant was lacking in credibility about who detained him because of the discrepancy in his written and oral evidence. Insufficient evidence about forced military service : The RPD questioned the Applicant’s credibility because his BOC narrative said he had been forced to serve in the military for two months, while a letter from his father said it was three months. [NAME] acknowledged that this was a minor detail but pointed to other inconsistencies that supported the RPD’s credibility finding on this point. Notably, the Applicant did not indicate on his Application Summary form that he had served in the [NAME], despite a question explicitly asking whether he had served in any military, security organization, or police force. Secondly, the Applicant testified that the [NAME] called his parents several times after he left, but his father’s letter makes no mention of this. [NAME] found that all these minor flaws, taken together, meant the Applicant was lacking credibility on this point. [ 11 ] Lastly, [NAME] assessed whether the RPD had erred by failing to address the Applicant’s concerns about being sent to the DRC with the [NAME]. [NAME] found that the RPD had not failed to address this fear because they had already found the Applicant not credible with regard to being forced to serve in the [NAME], and this fear was grounded in that assertion. [ 12 ] Overall, [NAME] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on the basis of the cumulative impact of the negative credibility findings on several key points in his narrative, and the insufficiency of evidence about his claim that he was forced to join the military. [ 13 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 14 ] Two main issues arise in this case: Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness because [NAME] based its negative credibility finding on a new issue without giving him notice or the opportunity to respond? Was [NAME]’s credibility assessment reasonable, in particular its findings about the summons, and the evidence about the Applicant’s military service? [ 15 ] The first question is assessed under a standard which is akin to correctness review: see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69. [ 16 ] The second question is assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ], and confirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 [ [NAME] ]. [ 17 ] In summary, under the Vavilov framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the [NAME] and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints ( Vavilov at para 85; [NAME] at para 8). The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” ( Vavilov  at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-[NAME]’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-[NAME] ( Vavilov at para 125).

III. Analysis A. There was no denial of procedural fairness [ 18 ] The Applicant submitted a document titled “[NAME] No 1” in support of his claim. Among other things, this document invited the Applicant to appear at the [NAME] “on 16th November, 2022 at five (11:00) in the morning.” [NAME] mentioned the incoherence of the time notation ( “five (11:00)” ) as one of several concerns that appear on the face of the summons and agreed with the RPD’s finding that the summons was lacking in credibility. [ 19 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME] denied him procedural fairness by making this finding without giving him prior notice or an opportunity to address its concern about the description of the time. The Applicant submits that while the RPD asked him some questions about the time notation, it did not make a specific credibility finding on this point. He says that [NAME] raised a new issue by relying on the time notation as a basis for a negative credibility finding, and he was therefore entitled to notice and an opportunity to address the point: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 1074. [ 20 ] I am not persuaded that the time notation was a new issue, or that [NAME] had to give the Applicant notice of the concern before mentioning it as supporting a negative credibility finding. The law on when procedural fairness requires notice and an opportunity to be heard was summarized by Justice John Norris in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1281: [45] The test for whether procedural fairness required notice and an opportunity to be heard is whether [NAME] raised an issue that is new in the sense that it is legally and factually distinct from the grounds of appeal advanced and cannot reasonably be said to stem from the issues raised on appeal: see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 725 at paras 65 to 76, adopting the test in R v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 54 at para 30; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 876 at para 40. The test applies equally to grounds relied on by [NAME] and to the lines of reasoning it follows in disposing of an appeal: see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 600 at para 25. Thus, while it is open to [NAME] to make findings that go beyond those made by the RPD, if they do not reasonably stem from the issues raised on appeal, procedural fairness requires that the appellant be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Put another way, [NAME] may not “make additional findings or analyses on issues unknown to the applicant” ( [NAME] para 24). [46] [ADDRESS] has extended some latitude to [NAME] to raise new issues relating to a claimant’s credibility without further notice when the claimant’s credibility is “at the heart of” the RPD’s determination or the grounds of appeal advanced at [NAME]: see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 300 at para 13. However, that is not the case here. [ 21 ] Applying that guidance to the present case leads me to conclude that the time notation issue was not “new” . First, it is significant that the Applicant was aware of the concern, because the RPD specifically questioned him about the “five (11:00)” notation: MEMBER : Can you help me understand how you would know what time to go if the summons asked you to show up at five (5), the word five (5) and then it says in (11) o’clock in the morning? It says 5 (11) in the morning. CLAIMANT : [redacted] MEMBER : The letter says that you are invited to the [NAME] at five F-I-V-E (11) in the morning. So, given the contradiction between 5 o’clock and 11 o’clock, how do you know what time you are supposed to show up? CLAIMANT : [redacted] [ 22 ] Second, the credibility of the summons was one of the primary grounds for the RPD’s negative decision and lay at the heart of the Applicant’s appeal to [NAME]. The Applicant knew full well that the credibility of the document was in question, and he also knew that one of the questions raised about it by the RPD was the time notation. Moreover, the incoherence of the reference to the time is evident on the face of the document. [ 23 ] Finally, it is important to focus on what [NAME] actually said about this question. During oral argument, the Applicant emphasized that the time notation was one of the two key grounds cited by [NAME] for doubting the credibility of the summons. In contrast, the Respondent argued that the time notation finding was not the primary reason invoked by [NAME] for questioning the authenticity of the document. I agree with the Respondent’s argument on this point. [ 24 ] In assessing the Applicant’s procedural fairness argument, it is important to go back to the actual findings made by [NAME]. As discussed below, [NAME] agreed with the RPD’s finding that several typographical errors in the document diminished its credibility. [NAME] then added the following: [12] There are numerous other concerns on the face of the summons that was discussed at the hearing. For example, the summons asked the Appellant to report at “five (11:00) in the morning”. I find the time listed to be nonsensical. The Appellant was unable to explain why the summons contained so many errors. I cannot agree with the submissions made by the Appellant and find the RPD was correct to find the summons lacking in credibility. (Citations omitted). [ 25 ] This passage makes it clear that the time notation issue was mentioned as an example of the many concerns about the summons that were raised by the RPD. The Applicant does not dispute that he had been questioned about this; instead, he argues that since the RPD did not make a specific credibility finding based on it, [NAME] was barred from doing so without giving him prior notice. In my view, adopting this submission would stretch the fairness doctrine beyond its accepted scope. Doubts about the summons were raised by the RPD both during the hearing and in its decision. The impact of the summons on the credibility of the Applicant’s claim lay at the heart of his appeal to [NAME]. He was aware of the many issues that had been raised and had every opportunity to address them in his [NAME] appeal. Because of this, there was no denial of procedural fairness. B. The credibility findings were reasonable [ 26 ] The Applicant challenges several of [NAME]’s credibility findings and argues that [NAME] erred by making certain of these findings when it should instead have found the evidence to be insufficient. On this point, the Applicant’s main point is that insufficiency findings are not cumulative and do not affect the overall assessment of the claim, whereas credibility findings can add up to undermine the very basis of the claim. He submits that [NAME]’s error in making these credibility findings prevented it from examining the substance of his claim, and that this makes the decision unreasonable. [ 27 ] The Applicant takes issue with [NAME]’s findings on the summons and his evidence about military service. On the summons, the Applicant’s arguments on judicial review largely echo those in his appeal to [NAME]. He challenges [NAME]’s finding that the summons contains numerous problems on its face, including that it cites the wrong criminal office (the National Office of Criminal Investigation rather than the [NAME]), and that it contains an incorrect reference to the law on criminal procedure. Put briefly, the Applicant argued both before [NAME] and before this Court that it was an error to find the summons fraudulent due to the numerous errors contained in this document. [ 28 ] The Applicant argues that the errors in the summons were peripheral to his claim. I do not agree. In [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 990 [ [NAME] ], Justice Denis Gascon provided the following helpful clarification regarding the question of when a finding is properly understood to be unreasonable because it is unduly focused on minor elements of the evidence: [59] Furthermore, I am not persuaded that [NAME]’s analysis can be described as “microscopic”. I will address the “microscopic” approach argument, which is a popular refrain in [NAME]’s submissions and on which he relies a great deal in seeking to have [NAME]’s Decision set aside. With all due respect, I am of the view that [NAME] is mistaken about the meaning of the precedents relied on and the situations where a “microscopic” approach may result in the Court’s intervention. Indeed, [NAME] completely disregards an essential dimension of the authorities he cites regarding the “microscopic” approach issue. As the Court clearly explained in [NAME] and [NAME] , an [NAME]’s approach cannot be called “microscopic” (and result in a reviewing court’s intervention) unless it clings to issues that are irrelevant or peripheral to the refugee claimant’s claim. [60] An analysis cannot be called “microscopic” or over-vigilant because it is exhaustive. It is not the thorough, detailed and rigorous nature of the analysis or examination conducted by an [NAME] that makes it “microscopic”. Quite the contrary, such an approach reflects the rigour that we have the right to expect from an [NAME]’s analysis. I would even say that such rigour is expected to satisfy the requirement for a “justified” decision established in Vavilov. An [NAME]’s analysis veers towards being “microscopic” when it delves into peripheral issues and examines contradictions that are insignificant or irrelevant to the purpose of the refugee claim. In that case, the Court’s intervention may be required. [ 29 ] In my view, on this point the present case bears many similarities to [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 196. In that case, a police summons was found fraudulent due to an error in the legal instrument under which the summons was issued. Justice Andrew Little found that [NAME] had not conducted a microscopic or unreasonable assessment of the summons, but rather a thorough and detailed one (at paras 53 and 54). Justice Little observed the following about the role of the summons in the case: [22] [NAME] found that the summons was determinative of the applicant’s claim. Because it was not genuine, it failed to corroborate his core allegations. This led [NAME] to conclude that the applicant was not credible overall: he was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China or in Canada, had not established his allegations about the police raid on his [COMPANY], and was not being pursued by the PSB in China. [ 30 ] I find the same logic applies in this case. The summons was the corroborative evidence for the Applicant’s core allegation. Therefore, errors in the summons were not peripheral to his claim but rather spoke to the credibility of his key evidence. I agree with the Respondent that the assessment of the summons falls within the specialized expertise of the [NAME], and it is not the role of this Court on judicial review to re-weigh that evidence, absent exceptional circumstances that are not present here ( Vavilov at para 125). [ 31 ] I am also not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument that [NAME] erred by making credibility findings on the summons instead of ruling that it was simply insufficient. [NAME] made a clear finding that “the RPD was correct to find the summons lacking in credibility.” I can see no basis to intervene and declare that [NAME] should have found that the summons was insufficient evidence, rather than finding it not credible. [ 32 ] Next, I turn to the Applicant’s challenge to [NAME]’s finding that he was not credible about having been forced to serve in the military. [NAME] found that his credibility on this point was impugned because he answered “no” to a question on his Application Summary form about whether he had ever served in any military force. [NAME] also noted that a letter from the Applicant’s father failed to mention the Applicant’s allegation that after he left Rwanda, the [NAME] called his parents several times looking for him. Additionally, [NAME] had previously found that the Applicant was inconsistent about who detained and tortured him because his BOC says it was the [NAME], while in his testimony he says it was the [NAME]. [ 33 ] The Applicant says that the fact that he did not refer to his military service in his Application Summary form was a minor oversight. Regarding the letter from his father, the Applicant says that this is an insufficiency of evidence issue and should not have been used to uphold a credibility finding. [ 34 ] I do not agree with these arguments. As put in [NAME] , “the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions concerning the crucial elements of a refugee claim may support an adverse finding regarding a claimant’s credibility” (at para 56). While the issue with the Applicant’s Application Summary form and with the father’s letter could be characterized as omissions as opposed to contradictions, an accumulation of omissions may support a credibility finding. Both omissions went to a central element of the claim, being whether the Applicant had been forced to serve in the [NAME]. [ 35 ] Finally, the Applicant challenges [NAME]’s failure to address his fear of being sent to the DRC if he was forced to re-join the [NAME]. I cannot accept this argument because [NAME] dealt squarely with this claim, finding that because the Applicant’s allegations relating to being forced to join the [NAME] lacked credibility, there was no need to address his stated fear of being sent to the DRC. This was a reasonable conclusion based on the credibility findings [NAME] had previously made, and I can find no basis to question it. [ 36 ] [ADDRESS]’s jurisprudence is that where [NAME] has determined that credibility is determinative of the claim, it is open to [NAME] to not address other elements of the claim: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 1073 at paras 24 and 25; [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 719 at para 13. That is exactly what happened here, and there is no basis to find this to be unreasonable.

IV. Conclusion [ 37 ] Based on the analysis set out above, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. [ 38 ] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-20436-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "William F. Pentney" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-20436-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING: march 2, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: pentney j. DATED: may 20, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] & Solicitors Calgary, Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta For The Respondent