Federal Court Upholds Denial of Refugee Protection

Date: 20260427 Docket: IMM-21132-24 Citation: 2026 FC 552 Ottawa, Ontario, April 27, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicants, [NAME] [Principal Applicant] and his spouse, [NAME] [Associate Applicant] seek judicial review of the decision of the Refuge Appeal Division [[NAME]] which upheld the decision of the Refugee Pretention Division [[NAME]] finding that the Applicants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this application. [NAME]’s decision was reasonable. Background [ 3 ] The Applicants are citizens of China. They entered Canada in 2019 to visit their daughter. The Principal Applicant claims that in June 2020, while he was in Canada, he learned from his sister that the house church he attended in China had been raided by the Public Security Bureau [PSB] and his cousin and two other congregants were arrested. His sister told him that the police had searched the Principal Applicant’s home in China, interrogated her and her family and returned the next day with a summons issued to the Principal Applicant [Summons]. The Principal Applicant claims that he fears persecution in China on religious grounds. Both Applicants also claim that they are now practicing Christians in Canada and face persecution from [NAME] if they return to China and practice Christianity there. They made claims for refugee protection in September 2020. [ 4 ] In a decision dated July 5, 2022, [NAME] dismissed their claim, the determinative issue being credibility. [NAME] found much of the Applicants’ evidence and testimony to be inconsistent, thereby rebutting the presumption of truthfulness on their part. [NAME] found that Applicants did not establish that they were trustworthy and reliable witnesses. There were major inconsistencies in their evidence which led [NAME] to make negative inferences regarding the credibility of their profile as Christians and their allegations that the PSB visited their house and are looking for them. [ 5 ] The Applicants then appealed to [NAME]. [NAME] issued a negative decision on August 4, 2023. The Applicants sought leave and judicial review of that decision. On consent, the application was granted by Order dated July 24, 2024, and the matter was remitted back to a different [NAME] panel for redetermination. On October 31, 2024, [NAME] issued the redetermination decision that is the subject of this judicial review. [NAME] Decision [ 6 ] On redetermination, [NAME] held that [NAME] had correctly found that the Applicants are not credible and dismissed their appeal. [ 7 ] [NAME] accepted the six items of new evidence that were submitted by the Applicants after the appeal had been perfected but declined to hold an oral hearing. [ 8 ] [NAME] found that the notice of arrest issued to the Principal Applicant’s cousin [NOA], which is dated June 13, 2020, and issued to the arrestee’s family member [NAME] (who is listed as the sister of the Principal Applicant’s spouse in her refugee protection application) was fraudulent. [NAME] arrived at this finding based on the objective country documents and a comparison of the issued NOA with a sample contained in the objective country documents. [NAME] described four instances where the NOA did not correspond to the sample. Having found that the NOA was not genuine, [NAME] also found that no weight could be given to the Summons dated June 15, 2020, and issued to the Principal Applicant who is said to be “suspected of participating in activities of an [NAME]” . [NAME] found that the Summons could not be given weight because it was issued by the same organization and in relation to the same events, that is, they were interrelated. [ 9 ] [NAME] also found that the Principal Applicant’s evidence in his Basis of Claim narrative and his testimony were inconsistent as to the circumstances in which the PSB delivered the Summons, a critical document, and did not accept his explanation for the discrepancy. Given the Principal Applicant’s inconsistent testimony and the fraudulent documents, [NAME] found, on a balance of probabilities, that the PSB did not visit or leave a summons for the Principal Applicant as alleged. [ 10 ] [NAME] also found that [NAME] was correct in its finding that there were inconsistencies in the Principal Applicant’s testimony related to when he first attended church. [ 11 ] Given these concerns, as well as an uncontested credibility finding of [NAME] regarding the inconsistencies in how the Principal Applicant learned of the arrest of his fellow practitioners, [NAME] found that the Principal Applicant was not a credible witness, and he was not a Christian in China. [ 12 ] [NAME] also found that [NAME] was correct to find that the Applicants do not have a sur place claim. [NAME] described the Principal Applicant’s testimony about his involvement with the church and his religious knowledge. [NAME] acknowledged that the threshold for religious knowledge is low but found that the Principal Applicant’s testimony was vague and his knowledge was superficial. [NAME] agreed with [NAME] that the Principal Applicant’s testimony did not establish his alleged profile as a Christian. [NAME] also considered the new evidence submitted by the Applicants and their related testimony but found, for the reason it stated, that the letters from their son and related testimony was not credible evidence and afforded it no weight. The decision also noted that even if the photos of the Applicants at a parade show they participated in that event, [NAME] had already found that they are not genuine Christians. Issues and Standard of Review [ 13 ] In my view, the application raises two issues: Was [NAME]’s decision reached in procedurally fair manner; and Was [NAME]’s decision reasonable? [ 14 ] The standard of review for issues of procedural fairness is correctness (see [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79;  Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Functionally, this requires the Court’s analysis to focus on whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances ( Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54). [ 15 ] The standard of review on the merits of [NAME]’s decision is reasonableness. On judicial review the Court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 99). Was [NAME]’s decision reached in a procedurally fair manner? Applicants’ Position [ 16 ] The Applicants submit that [NAME]’s determination concerning the NOA was procedurally unfair because the Applicants had no notice that the authenticity of this document was at issue. The matter was not raised by [NAME] or discussed in [NAME]’s decision. It was also not raised or discussed by [NAME] during the Applicants’ [NAME] hearing. The Applicants therefore did not address the authenticity of this document in their appeal as they had no reason to believe it was necessary. The Applicants submit that this was the same error that they identified with respect to [NAME]’s first decision, which was overturned on consent. By failing to provide notice of this new issue, [NAME] deprived the Applicants of their procedural right to respond to the RADs concerns with respect to a critical document. Respondent’s position [ 17 ] The Respondent submits that [NAME]’s findings on the NOA did not raise a new issue and subsequently did not require [NAME] to provide notice about its credibility to the Applicants. The Applicants’ credibility was the crux of [NAME]’s decision and was the primary focus of their appeal to [NAME]. It was procedurally fair for [NAME] to find an additional basis to question the Applicants’ credibility using the evidentiary record before [NAME], particularly where the Applicants’ credibility is a live issue on appeal. It was also open to [NAME] to independently assess the NOA, a central document in the Applicants’ claim, and find that it was not authentic. [ 18 ] The Respondent submits that the Applicants’ credibility was already an issue before [NAME]. The Applicants challenged [NAME]’s credibility findings on appeal and asserted that [NAME] failed to conduct an analysis of the Summons and the NOA. Therefore, [NAME] reasonably conducted an analysis of the NOA. [ 19 ] Finally, the Respondent submits that the Applicants’ assertion that [NAME] repeated the same determinative error that the Applicants identified with respect to [NAME]’s first decision is a mischaracterization. The consent order states that the parties agreed that [NAME] based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact in its assessment of the NOA. [ADDRESS] did not find a denial of natural justice in the first [NAME] hearing and decision. Analysis [ 20 ] [NAME] found that the determinative issue in the Applicant’s claim was credibility. The Applicants’ appeal to [NAME] raised the issue that [NAME] erred in its credibility finding. In their written submissions to [NAME], the Applicants stated that the appeal gave rise to a single issue “whether [NAME]'s decision is based on unsustainable credibility findings.” [ 21 ] [ADDRESS] has previously held that no procedural fairness issue arises when [NAME] finds an additional basis to question an applicant’s credibility using the evidentiary record that was before [NAME]. That is, where credibility was already in issue before [NAME] and the evidence in issue was part of [NAME] record ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 246 at paras 11, 13). [ 22 ] This was elaborated upon in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 194: [17] However, the case law takes a realistic approach and recognizes that [NAME] is not required to give notice when it merely supports a negative credibility finding with facts that were already in the record: See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 178 at paragraph 31 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 246; [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 896 at paragraph 28. As summarized in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 300 at paragraph 13: … when the credibility of a refugee protection claimant is at the heart of [NAME]’s decision and the grounds for appeal before [NAME] is entitled to make independent findings in this regard, without having to question the applicant or giving the applicant another opportunity to make submissions. [ 18 ] Similarly, an applicant cannot raise an argument and then complain that [NAME] is responding to it. For example, if the applicant draws [NAME]’s attention to certain documents, [NAME] may assess their credibility: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 14; He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 744. The same rule applies when the applicant submits new evidence to [NAME]: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 117. [ 23 ] Accordingly, I do not agree that the Applicants were denied procedural fairness because [NAME] assessed and made a credibility finding with respect to the NOA. Credibility was the sole issue raised before [NAME] and the NOA was in [NAME] record. [ 24 ] Further, the record does not support the Applicants’ assertion that [NAME] repeated the same error that the Applicants identified with respect to [NAME]’s first decision. [ 25 ] In the judgment on consent pertaining to the judicial review of [NAME]’s first decision, the parties agreed that [NAME] erred in its assessment of the Principal Applicant’s NOA: AND UPON noting the parties’ agreement that the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, in particular that [NAME] erred in its assessment of the Applicant’s Notice of Arrest; [ 26 ] I agree with the Respondent that the consent judgement does not indicate that there was a denial of natural justice in the first [NAME] hearing and decision. Rather, the identified and agreed error was a finding of fact in its assessment of the NOA. On that point, I also note that [NAME]’s first decision did include an analysis of the NOA. Thus, the reason that the matter was sent back for redetermination was not for a breach of procedural fairness which has been repeated by [NAME] in the decision under review. [ 27 ] Similar to Justice Ahmed’s finding in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1390, and unlike Fu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2017 FC 1074 which is relied upon by the Applicants, here, the issue of authenticity of the NOA is not a pivotal new matter requiring notice to the Applicants ( [NAME] at paras 29-33). [ 28 ] In my view, it was not a breach of procedural fairness for [NAME], on redetermination, to examine the NOA and conclude that it impacted the Applicants’ credibility. [NAME] can independently assess documentary evidence and make credibility findings ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 785 at paras 18-20). [ 29 ] Further, the Applicants were aware that credibility was at issue and that the NOA and its authenticity had been considered by [NAME] in its first decision and, in all likelihood, would again be considered by [NAME] on redetermination. I do not accept the Applicants’ submission that they did not address the authenticity of the NOA in their appeal because they had no reason to believe it was necessary. Was [NAME]’s decision reasonable? Applicants’ position [ 30 ] The Applicants submit that [NAME]’s finding that the NOA was fraudulent based on a comparison of a sample notice of arrest found in the National Documentation Package [NDP] was substantively unreasonable. Further, and in the alternative, that [NAME]’s decision is based on credibility findings that do not meet the threshold of reasonableness. Specifically, with respect to findings regarding the Principal Applicant’s first church attendance, religious knowledge, and the new evidence submitted. Respondent’s position [ 31 ] The Respondent submits that [NAME] conducted a coherent, rational and independent review of [NAME]’s findings and reasonably came to the same conclusion. [NAME]’s finding that the Applicants failed to establish their claim with sufficient credible evidence was reasonable. It was reasonable for [NAME] to find that: the NOA was inauthentic; the Summons was inauthentic; there were inconsistencies regarding when and how the Principal Applicant joined Christianity; the Principal Applicant did not demonstrate religious knowledge; and, that the new evidence did not credibly establish the Applicants’ claim. Analysis [ 32 ] The written submissions of both parties focus on four of [NAME]’s findings. I will address each in turn. i. Authenticity of PBS documents [ 33 ] In [NAME]’s redetermination decision, its analysis begins by recognizing the lack of proper assessment of the Summons and the NOA in [NAME]’s previous decision: [22] The Appellants are correct that the summons and the Notice of Arrest or NOA that was issued to [NAME] were not properly assessed. These documents if genuine are prima facie proof of their allegations. I can remedy this on appeal by assessing the documents. [ 34 ] [NAME] goes on to conduct its own analysis and determines that the NOA is not authentic based on issues on the document’s face. This analysis considers the objective country documentation (a Response to Information Request, China: Format of notices of detention and notices of arrest, including signatures, letterhead and conformation contained in documents , dated October 7, 2021 and found in the May 21, 2022 NDP [RIR]) which specifies that notices of detention and arrest are uniform in appearance; the same format and appearance is used country wide; and, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security has not issued new forms since 2013. [NAME] notes that there are three parts to the NOA as per the sample: the counterfoil; the copy kept on record; and the copy given to a family member of the person under arrest. The copy provided by the Applicants is alleged to be the one given to family members, however, the information provided therein does not match the information found on this document in the sample. The decision goes on to outline the specific discrepancies between the sample and the NOA provided including: missing addressee information; divergence of text and formatting; information about family members that should not be included; and, missing detention centre field. [NAME] states that “[c]ase law indicates that, where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the document, whether because of an irregularity on the face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, the document may be assigned little or no weight” , citing “ [NAME] v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1332-91), [NAME], July 16, 1996.” [ 35 ] Based on this assessment, [NAME] found the NOA to be fraudulent. [ 36 ] As I have previously stated in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 263: [ 17 ] Inconsistencies on the face of a document provided by an applicant, identified by comparison to sample documents contained in the NDP, may provide grounds, in whole or in part, to conclude that a submitted document is not genuine (see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 668 at paras 44-47 [ [NAME] ]) and [NAME] is owed deference in its assessment of such documents ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 736 at para 20(c) [ [NAME] ]). … (see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 564 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 163 [ [NAME] ] at para 38). [ 37 ] The Applicants submit that, while the NOA was not identical to the sample, it was “substantially similar” in both form and content and that such differences are acknowledged in the RIR. When appearing before me, counsel [NAME] argued that [NAME] erred by interpreting the RIR to require the NOA to be identical to the sample. [ 38 ] However, the RIR states as follows: 1.3 Uniformity and Variability in Notices of Detention and of Arrest According to the Senior Lecturer, notices of detention and of arrest are "[u]niform" in appearance (Senior Lecturer 11 Aug. 2021). The Senior Research Fellow, however, stated that notices of detention and of arrest "are standard, but may have yearly variation, slight variations in formatting, or vary in where the official seal is placed" (Senior Research Fellow 19 Aug. 2021). The Visiting Professor indicated that "[b]oth are uniform across the country," and that "[r]egardless of location, they are almost the same thing" (Visiting Professor 6 Aug. 2021). The same source stated that "[t]he wording in these forms is nearly identical across provinces" (Visiting Professor 6 Aug. 2021). In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, a China researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that "[f]or both documents, the same format and appearance is used across the country, though there may be some small differences for different locations" (HRW 17 Aug. 2021). …. [ 39 ] Read in whole, the RIR suggests that notices of arrest can be expected to vary very little. I do not agree with the Applicants that [NAME] misinterpreted the RIR to require exact conformity with the sample. [NAME]’s comparison identified more than slight variations in formatting. Further, “[i]t was open to [NAME] to question the authenticity of the applicants’ summons based on differences – even small ones – between it and an authentic counterpart” ( [NAME] at para 38). [ 40 ] In my view, [NAME] reasonably concluded that the NOA was fraudulent. [ 41 ] Having found the NOA not to be genuine, [NAME] went on to find that it could afford no weight to the Summons because it was issued by the same organization, the PSB, and in relation to the same events. I agree with the Respondent that this was a reasonable determination. As recognized by [NAME], the submission of a fraudulent document can have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents, especially when they are interrelated, and on the overall credibility of the applicant ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 572 at paras 39-40). ii. Inconsistencies in church attendance [ 42 ] The Applicants submit that [NAME]’s finding that the Principal Applicant gave inconsistent testimony with respect to when he started attending church is not supported by the record. The Principal Applicant explained his inconsistent answers regarding the first time he attended church when the inconsistency was put to him. [ 43 ] In my view, this submission is of no merit. [NAME] explicitly accepted that the Principal Applicant may have misunderstood the question put to him to be about when he first attended church in Canada. However, [NAME]’s concerns remained with his evidence about why he joined the Christian faith and when he began attending underground church in China. I do not agree with the submission by the Applicants, made when appearing before me, that these are the same questions as the one acknowledged to have been misunderstood. [NAME] states as follows: [38] I accept that he may have misunderstood the question about the first time he was attending church and believed that he was being asked about church in Canada given he had just discussed circumstances in Canada. However, I find that this still does not explain why he answered the initial question about why he joined Christianity as he did. That question was not ambiguous or vague and the panel did not say anything about Canada when that question was raised. The topic of Canada only came up in the PA’s response. It is reasonable to expect that the PA would testify consistently about what motivated him to become a Christian and according to his narrative, these are events that happened in China. Whereas he testified only about what happened in Canada. It is not microscopic to expect that his testimony would match the evidence that was found in his BOC narrative in this regard. [39] Moreover, such a misunderstanding, does not adequately account for why he went on to say in his explanation that he started church in China in 2015, which as [NAME] pointed out also contradicts what he said in his narrative about first attending church in China in 2018. I find that his testimony in this regard was not credible. It is reasonable to expect that he would recall and convey when and how he discovered his faith consistently and these inconsistencies establish that the PA lacks credibility. [ 44 ] The Applicants do not take issue with those findings. iii. Religious knowledge [ 45 ] [NAME] agreed with [NAME] that the Principal Applicant did not display a level of religious knowledge commensurate with that of someone who was genuinely practicing Christianity for over three years. [ 46 ] In their written submissions, the Applicants submit that there is a very low bar on refugee claimants to demonstrate religious knowledge as a requirement for proving religious identity. A decision-maker must be particularly cautious where the applicant was raised in a country where the Christian faith is not part of the social fabric (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1406; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 346). Further, that there is a difference between the genuineness of beliefs and the theological accuracy of beliefs (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1139 [ [NAME] 2015 ] at para 26). The Applicants submitted that [NAME] erroneously focused on the level of the Principal Applicant’s religious knowledge rather than the sincerity of his belief. This was unreasonable, particularly given he only has middle school education and did demonstrate some religious knowledge. Oral arguments were not made on this issue. [ 47 ] The Respondent submits that [NAME]’s findings on the level of religious knowledge displayed by the Principal Applicant were reasonable based on the record before it and are supported by the jurisprudence of this Court. [NAME] is entitled to assess the Applicants’ knowledge of their religion in an effort to gauge beliefs and allegations (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 750 [ [NAME] ] at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 490; [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FC 49 at para 10; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 490 at para 22; [NAME] 2015 at para 26; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1273 at para 15). [ 48 ] In my view, [NAME] reasonably found that despite allegedly: practicing Christianity since 2018; attending church once or twice a week since arriving in Canada in 2019; reading the Bible for ten minutes a day; and, becoming baptized in Canada which required attending Sunday classes for over a year, the Principal Applicant displayed vague and superficial knowledge of Christianity. [ 49 ] This is relevant because the Applicants are claiming a fear of persecution based on religion. As Justice Grammond held in [NAME] : [ 9 ] Nevertheless , there are some categories of cases in which the claimant’s religious knowledge is relevant. Where claimants assert that they fear persecution because they converted to a particular religion, this Court has consistently held that it is permissible for [NAME] to question them to ensure that their knowledge of their new religion corresponds to what can be reasonably expected in the circumstances:   [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 993, [2014] 1 FCR 405; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1273; [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FC 49; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 490; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 490 [ [NAME] ]. In the normal course of things, someone who converts to a new religion does so after having inquired about the fundamental characteristics of that religion. Conversion is usually followed by a process of further learning. It would be surprising if a convert were unable to show some knowledge of their religion. [ 10 ] This underscores an important element: in those circumstances, the claimant’s religious knowledge is relevant because it sheds light on the claimant’s credibility. It is not a component of the definition of refugee status. Rather, a convert who does not have a minimal degree of knowledge of their new religion is unlikely to be a credible witness. Stated differently, “there is a logical correlation between the depth of religious knowledge and the credibility of a claim of persecution”: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 346 at paragraph 9 [ [NAME] (2012) ]. More precisely, a finding that a claimant lacks basic knowledge of their asserted religion is an implausibility finding: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 503 at paragraph 18. [ 50 ] [NAME]’s reasons demonstrate that the questions put to the Principal Applicant were not difficult, however, that he was able to provide only rudimentary information about the Christian faith.

Accordingly, it was reasonable for [NAME] to conclude that he did not display a level of knowledge commensurate with that of someone who was genuinely practicing Christianity for over three years and that the Principal Applicant’s testimony did not establish his alleged profile as a genuine Christian ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 828 [ [NAME] ] at paras 28-29). iv. New evidence [ 51 ] [NAME] admitted the six items of new evidence submitted by the Applicants: [redacted] - an affidavit from the Principal Applicant dated January 18, 2023; - missing pages from the Applicants’ son’s hukou submitted on July 6, 2023; - another letter from their son dated September 12, 2024; - photos from the Jesus in Toronto parade dated September 7, 2024; and - a further affidavit from the Principal Applicant dated September 16, 2024. [ 52 ] However, [NAME] found that no weight could be given to the letter from the Applicants’ son dated January 3, 2023, or the photos that accompanied the letter. And, although the Applicants’ testimony at the hearing before the first [NAME] was consistent with the new evidence, the testimony did not overcome the significant credibility issues that existed within the case as a whole. Further, as it had already found that the Applicants were generally lacking in credibility, [NAME] gave no weight to their additional testimony, including the new allegation that they had been reported to the [NAME] for proselytizing in Canada. [NAME] considered the new evidence intended to establish this but found it not to be credible. In making this determination, [NAME] analyzed the evidence and considered the plausibility of the submissions. It concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the events described did not occur as alleged as they were outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected in the circumstances. [NAME] afforded no weight to the letter in establishing the allegation that the [NAME] are looking [NAME]. [ 53 ] [NAME] similarly found that the September 12, 2024, letter from the Applicants’ son was also insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns already set out. [ 54 ] Finally, [NAME] found that while the photos at the Jesus in Toronto parade show the Applicants at the event, there was no evidence that the activity came to the attention of the [NAME]. And, even if they did participate, [NAME] noted that it had already concluded that they are not genuine Christians. They likely affiliated themselves with this religion to advance a refugee claim. [ 55 ] In their written submissions, the Applicants argue that [NAME] erred in making findings premised on [NAME]’s previous adverse credibility findings, that the sur place analysis was unfairly corrupted by its previous untenable findings (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 972) and, that [NAME] erred in making assumptions about how local [NAME] would plausibly behave. This was not further addressed in the hearing before me. [ 56 ] The Respondent submits that [NAME] is entitled to draw negative credibility findings based on implausibilities, irrationality or a lack of common sense and can reject evidence that is internally inconsistent, or improbable given the context of the case as a whole ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 at para 26). Additionally, that adverse conclusions on an applicant’s credibility can be drawn based on the use of fraudulent documents ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 723 at para 30). And that [NAME] can assess an applicant’s sur place claim in light of any credibility concerns regarding the original claim ( [NAME] at para 52; [NAME] at para 34). [ 57 ] I agree with the Respondent. [ 58 ] This case is very similar to that of [NAME] in which Justice Zinn found: [ 34 ] [NAME] correctly noted that the letter merely confirms the Applicant’s attendance at church and other religious activities. [NAME] did state, at the end of paragraph 41 of its reasons, that the letter was not probative of the Applicant’s religious identity, I view this statement as being analogous to the sentence that follows, regarding the photograph: “[NAME] was correct in its finding that the photo has insufficient probative value in establishing that the [Applicant’s] church activities in Canada flow from a genuine commitment to his faith.” I do not consider it unreasonable for [NAME] to have found these documents inadequate to demonstrate the genuineness of the Applicant’s religious convictions. They are probative of his religious identity to some degree, in that attendance at church services and events lends some credence to the Applicant’s assertion that he is Christian. However, his testimony led [NAME] to doubt the genuineness of his faith, as explained above. [NAME] is entitled to import concerns about an applicant’s credibility and genuineness into the evaluation of a sur place claim (see [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1067 at paras 27–28). It was open to [NAME] to find the letter insufficiently probative of a genuine commitment to Christianity to overcome the negative credibility findings, which caused the sur place claim to fail. [ 59 ] Similarly here, in my view, it was reasonable for [NAME] to find that the new evidence submitted was insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns already set out. Conclusion [ 60 ] For the reasons above, I find that the Applicants have not met their onus of demonstrating that [NAME]’s decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

Accordingly, I am dismissing this application for judicial review.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-21132-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed; There shall be no order as to costs; and No question of general importance for certification was proposed or arises. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-21132-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 23, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: april 27, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto, [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent