Federal Court Rejects Refugee Protection Claim on Judicial Review

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260526 Docket: IMM-4295-25 Citation: 2026 FC 678 Toronto, Ontario, May 26, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] of the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]. In that decision, the [NAME] upheld the conclusion of the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] that Mr. [APPELLANT] is not a refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act [IRPA]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, this application must be dismissed. II. [APPELLANT] A. Facts [ 3 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] is a Shia Muslim from Pakistan. He alleges that, starting in 2021, he was threatened on multiple occasions by anti-Shia groups for being involved in activities that were supportive of the Shia community. [ 4 ] On May 5, 2023, Mr. [APPELLANT] attended a Shia protest that arose in response to the killing of six Shia teachers. The next day, members of an anti-[NAME] called Ahl e sunnat Wal Jammat [ASWJ] attacked him, and the police later refused to assist when he attempted to report the attack. [ 5 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] was also attacked by ASWJ members on July 8, 2023, and, once again, the police refused to take any action. [ 6 ] On July 14, 2023, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s home was attacked and his family was threatened by a mob instigated by ASWJ. In response, Mr. [APPELLANT] and his family relocated several times to avoid further violence. [ 7 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] also alleges that he was subject to a fatwa issued against him for blasphemy, and was the subject of false allegations made to [NAME] police, which resulted in a “first information report” [FIR] against him. [ 8 ] As a result, Mr. [APPELLANT], who had already obtained a Canadian visitor visa, fled to Canada and initiated a claim for refugee protection. B. Procedural History [ 9 ] The [NAME] rejected Mr. [APPELLANT]’s claim, finding that concerns related to his evidence and testimony undermined his credibility. In particular, the [NAME] found that: 1) there were significant inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions between Mr. [APPELLANT]’s basis of claim narrative and his testimony;

2) Mr. [APPELLANT]’s testimony raised concerns as to the legitimacy of the FIR; and 3) Mr. [APPELLANT]’s travel to the United Arab Emirates and subsequent return to Pakistan undermined his claimed subjective fear of persecution. [ 10 ] On appeal, the [NAME] largely agreed with the [NAME]’s credibility findings and confirmed that Mr. [APPELLANT] had not credibly established his claim for refugee protection.

III. ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 11 ] The Applicant raises several issues on judicial review, all of which, he argues, establish that the decision under review was unreasonable. [ 12 ] The parties do not dispute that the standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at para 23 [ [RESPONDENT] ]. As is frequently pointed out, a court conducting a review of the substantive reasonableness of a decision “must consider the outcome of the administrative decision in light of its underlying rationale in order to ensure that the decision as a whole is transparent, intelligible and justified” ( [NAME] at para 15).

IV. ANALYSIS [ 13 ] In the paragraphs that follow, I will consider the various arguments raised by the Applicant. More generally, however, he argues that the credibility findings at issue are sufficiently interwoven that if I accept that any individual finding is unreasonable, it necessarily undermines the [NAME]’s decision as a whole. As I will set out below, in the context of this case, I do not agree with this proposition. A. Did the [NAME] misconstrue the term “harm” ? [ 14 ] In his Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative, Mr. [APPELLANT] recounted an experience when his assailants came to his home in July 2023. He was not home at the time, but he described the event as follows: “[T]he attackers vandalized my property and harmed my family while searching for me in the rooms. Those attackers left stern warnings that they would locate and kill me.” [ 15 ] At the [NAME] hearing, the presiding member asked the Applicant about this incident. The Applicant stated: “Yes, they attacked my home. They were looking for me, but I was not at home. And they threatened my family that if whatever I am doing, and if I didn't abandon my activities, I would have to face critical situations.” [ 16 ] In the [NAME]’s rejection of the Applicant’s claim, the member found it inconsistent that Mr. [APPELLANT] mentioned “harm” to his family in his BOC narrative but only mentioned threats in his testimony. The [NAME] later confirmed that this was a material inconsistency, and that it undermined Mr. [APPELLANT]’s credibility. [ 17 ] On judicial review, the Applicant argues that these findings represent an unreasonably microscopic assessment of his testimony. He explained in the [NAME] hearing that his family were pressured and threatened and that this is what he was referring to in his BOC narrative when he indicated they were harmed. He further argues that it was unreasonably narrow for the [NAME] and the [NAME] to assume that his use of the term “harm” could only refer to physical harm. [ 18 ] I agree with the Applicant. Even assuming that there was some inconsistent use of terminology between Mr. [APPELLANT]’s BOC narrative and his testimony, I am convinced that it is overly microscopic to suggest that this inconsistency is meaningful. The bulk of the Applicant’s testimony on this incident was internally consistent, and I see no basis on which to find that the serious threats that the Applicant recounted in his testimony could not also be considered ‘harm’ as he set out in his BOC narrative. [ 19 ] With this said, I find that the [NAME]’s error in this regard is relatively minor, as this finding played only a very small role in the [NAME]’s larger analysis, and there is no indication that it influenced the tribunal’s other findings. B. Did the [NAME] err in finding that the Applicant’s alleged kidnapping did not occur? [ 20 ] In the initial BOC form that the Applicant completed with the assistance of counsel, he set out various problems that he encountered, including the following: “I received threats, endured torture, and was kidnapped by unidentified individuals, reportedly acting on behalf of a [NAME]'s [NAME]. My injuries were severe enough to require a week-long hospital stay.” Later, the Applicant provided a more detailed narrative, in which he set out numerous events that caused him to leave Pakistan and seek asylum abroad. However, the kidnapping incident (that was a relatively central feature in his original BOC form) was not mentioned in the detailed narrative. The [NAME] and the [NAME] both drew a negative inference from this omission. [ 21 ] The Applicant argues that this was unreasonable, largely because the kidnapping incident was not entirely omitted from his BOC but was only omitted from the detailed narrative that was provided in addition to the BOC form. In this sense, the Applicant notes that his case is distinct from much of the “BOC omission” jurisprudence, which generally involves information that was completely omitted from the BOC, and only came to light during the refugee hearing. [ 22 ] I have some sympathy [NAME]’s argument. This is not a situation in which new information that has been omitted from any previous disclosure is suddenly revealed at a hearing. That said, the [NAME] carefully considered the Applicant’s explanations for omitting the kidnapping incident from the detailed narrative and it provided intelligible reasons for rejecting those explanations. The [NAME]’s reasons are internally coherent and appear to be the product of a rational chain of analysis. In these circumstances, the reasonableness standard requires that a reviewing court defer to the [NAME]’s decision: [NAME] at para 85. C. Did the [NAME] err in questioning the authenticity of the FIR? [ 23 ] As noted above, in support of his claim, the Applicant submitted a FIR that he claimed was issued against him by the [NAME] police force. The FIR outlines an alleged disturbance that Mr. [APPELLANT] caused at a [NAME]. At the hearing, the [NAME] member posed several questions to the Applicant related to the FIR. The first part of the exchange is as follows: MEMBER: The FIR you provided me, is that accurate? CLAIMANT: [redacted] MEMBER: So the FIR says that you started an argument at a [NAME] with a [APPELLANT], and then you started insulting [NAME]. Is that what happened? CLAIMANT: [redacted] MEMBER: So why did you start an argument with a [APPELLANT] at a [NAME]? CLAIMANT: [redacted] [ 24 ] At this point in the proceeding, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s then counsel interjected to ask for a brief adjournment. When the parties returned, there was an exchange in which the [NAME] member expressed concern that the Applicant was overheard discussing his testimony about the FIR over the break. After this, the questioning resumed as follows: MEMBER: Mr. Claimant, when we left off we were discussing the incidents in the [NAME] that is described in the FIR. So, my question before we left off was why you decided to instigate this argument with the [APPELLANT] in the [NAME]? CLAIMANT: [redacted] MEMBER: Sorry, you were not present in the [NAME]? CLAIMANT: [redacted] MEMBER: Okay. Mr. Claimant, before we took a break, I asked you if the FIR was accurate, if --- if the description of events in the FIR was true and you told me that it was, twice. CLAIMANT: [redacted] [ 25 ] The [NAME] drew a negative inference in respect of this aspect of the Applicant’s testimony. The [NAME] upheld this assessment, finding that the Applicant's testimony before the break contradicted his testimony after the break, and that this contradiction was not reasonably explained. Mr. [APPELLANT] argues that both the [NAME] and the [NAME] erred in drawing an adverse inference related to this testimony because he had consistently stated that the FIR was “a fabrication issued to harass him.” I disagree. [ 26 ] The Applicant’s argument is essentially that when e was describing the [NAME] incident at the [NAME] hearing, he was describing the details contained in the FIR, and not what actually happened. While this may be a plausible explanation, I cannot find that it was unreasonable for the [NAME] and the [NAME] to take the Applicant’s initial words at face value. When the Applicant stated that the FIR was accurate, the [NAME] member cannot be faulted for understanding the testimony to mean just this. It was therefore open to the [NAME] to find that the Applicant’s changed testimony undermined his credibility. This is particularly the case given the concerning dialogue that appeared to take place over the brief recess. As a reviewing court, I cannot say that the [NAME]’s assessment of this aspect of the Applicant’s testimony was unreasonable. D. Did the [NAME] err in its treatment of the remaining evidence? [ 27 ] In addition to the FIR, the Applicant also submitted a written fatwa that had allegedly been issued by those who wished to harm him. While the [NAME] had “no credibility concerns stemming from the face of the document” it stated: The Federal Court has stated that submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by a claimant, especially when they are interrelated. I find that the provision of a non genuine FIR impacts the weight that I can assign to the fatwa, which allegedly led to the FIR being filed. I find on a balance of probabilities that the fatwa is not genuine. [ 28 ] On judicial review, the Applicant argues that the [NAME] erred in this finding because, unlike the jurisprudence that the panel relied on, in this case the fatwa and the FIR were not interrelated. As such, the Applicant maintains that it was an error for the [NAME] to allow its findings on the FIR to influence its findings on the fatwa. Once again, I do not agree with the Applicant. The thrust of the Applicant’s claim was that he was targeted by the ASWJ at various times, and in various ways. One way he was targeted was through the issuance of the fatwa. Another was to orchestrate the issuance of the FIR. The [NAME] did not make up this characterization of the Applicant’s claim; rather, it came directly from the Applicant’s own statements. For example, in his detailed narrative, Mr. [APPELLANT] stated: I was being forced to cease my activities and my defiance led to brutal assault and victimization. [NAME] got a fatwa issued against me accusing me of blasphemy and subsequently lodged an FIR against me with blasphemy charges. [ 29 ] Based on these statements, it was reasonable for the [NAME] to view the fatwa and FIR as part of a sequence of interrelated events that, according to Mr. [APPELLANT], were all orchestrated by the ASWJ. In these circumstances, then, there was a rational chain of analysis connecting the [NAME]’s findings on the FIR to the alleged issuance of the fatwa. [ 30 ] In support of his claim, the Applicant provided various other documents, including a medical discharge report, a letter from his [NAME], an affidavit from his wife, and a letter from a [NAME] [NAME]. The [NAME] did not ignore these documents but cited various reasons for discounting their weight. For example, the name of the doctor listed in the medical discharge report was spelled differently in the letterhead than it was in the signature and seal affixed to the letter. This anomaly was reasonably concerning for the [NAME]. [ 31 ] Regarding the letters from the [NAME] and the [NAME], the Applicant argues that the [NAME] erred (as did the [NAME]) in unduly focusing on what the letters do not say instead of considering what they do say. This argument was also put to the [NAME] in respect of the [NAME] decision, and the [NAME] found as follows: I have reviewed the letters from the [NAME] and [NAME]. While I agree that is it likely that the authors of the letters would be aware if the Appellant was attacked and a fatwa was issued against him, the [NAME] is correct that the authors of the letters do not indicate how they obtained this information. As a result, it is unclear whether they witnessed the attacks and fatwa firsthand or if the Appellant told them about them. This is relevant as it impacts the weight to be assigned to these documents. Further, while the letters corroborate the attack and fatwa, they do not address or overcome the credibility concerns related to the kidnapping and FIR. [ 32 ] This is a reasonable finding. In the process of weighing evidence, it is appropriate to inquire into, and assess, how a witness obtained the information that is being advanced. Evidence that discloses how the witness obtained the relevant information may often be considered more reliable, and warranting more weight, than evidence that is silent as to the provenance of the information: see, for example , [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 469 at para 16; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2019 FC 197 at paras 10-11, 35-38 . [ 33 ] In part, this is because omitting the source of the information leaves open the possibility that the information was obtained second-hand, and possibly directly from the claimant, which may reduce its corroborative value: [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2012 FC 763 at para 54. This is precisely the analytical approach adopted by the [NAME]. As such, it was reasonable for the tribunal to conclude that the information provided in the letters was simply insufficient to outweigh the credibility concerns.

V.

CONCLUSION [ 34 ] Based on the above findings, I have concluded that while the decision under review contained flaws, it does represent a reasonable outcome considering the factual and legal constraints that arise in this case. The reasonableness standard does not require perfection. As such, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. The parties did not propose a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-4295-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question to be certified. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4295-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 22, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: May 26, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent