Federal Court Upholds Denial of Refugee Status Due to Inconsistent Evidence

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260618 Docket: IMM-10396-25 Citation: 2026 FC 834 Ottawa, Ontario, June 18, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent CORRECTED

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [APPELLANT] [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]], dated April 24, 2025, dismissing his appeal [Decision] and confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], dated December 17, 2024, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The [NAME] found that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c. 27 [ IRPA ]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Factual background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Uganda who made a claim for protection because he feared persecution in Uganda as a bisexual man. The Applicant alleges that he was caught having intimate relations with another man at a party in November 2022 and that his community rapidly became aware of the situation. He now fears for his safety because same-sex relations are illegal in Uganda. [ 4 ] In 2023, the Applicant filed a refugee claim that was rejected by the RPD on the basis that he lacked credibility. The RPD ruled that there were major inconsistencies between the Applicant’s Basis of Claim [BOC] and his testimony. [ 5 ] The [NAME] upheld the RPD’s decision and found that despite the Applicant’s possible stress and trauma, he did not have cognitive issues that would justify him omitting important facts in his BOC. The [NAME] found that: [t]he Appellant’s narrative paints a completely different picture of what happened on that date. It states that the Appellant and someone who caught his eye at the party were discovered while being intimate by an unknown person who scared and threatened them. Thereafter, word spread about what had happened. That is a substantially different account than the Appellant gave at the hearing. Had he recalled these details at a later time, which were clearly remembered at the hearing, it is reasonable to believe that he would have amended his BOC or made it known that he had additions to make to his narrative at the beginning of the hearing. He did neither of those things. [ 6 ] Indeed, in his interview before the RPD, the Applicant stated that he and his partner were physically assaulted with sticks and canes by a [NAME] of people, that police were involved and arrested the man he was caught with, that he escaped from police custody and hid in a tree, and that the police is looking for him to this date because of these events. [ 7 ] The [NAME] also found that one letter provided by the Applicant in support of his claim was stamped in 2015 even if the Applicant stated that it was produced in 2023. These findings cumulatively led the [NAME] to conclude that the Applicant lacked credibility and was not at risk of persecution in Uganda for being a bisexual man.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 8 ] The sole issue in the present matter is whether the Decision is reasonable. [ 9 ] The applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( [RESPONDENT] (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [RESPONDENT] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [ Vavilov ]; [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [ [NAME] ]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness, justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [NAME] at para 99; [NAME] at para 59). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the legal constraints of the evidence before it ( Vavilov at paras 99, 101, 105, 108, 111, 125-128; [NAME] at para 73). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached” ( [RESPONDENT] at paras 100, 106; [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 SCC 21 at para 49 [ [NAME] ]).

IV. Analysis [ 10 ] The Applicant submits that while he recognizes that there are differences between his testimony before the RPD and his BOC, the [NAME] erred by not addressing other pieces of evidence. The Applicant submits that the rest of the evidence, namely letters from his mother and sister asserting that he always had a preference for people of the same sex, letters from Canadian organizations confirming his involvement with their institutions, a letter from an [COMPANY] dated December 15, 2023, but bearing a stamp dated December 15, 2015, and letters from [NAME] in [RESPONDENT], should have been considered to assess his credibility. The Applicant argues that by not considering these pieces of evidence, the [NAME] failed to take a holistic approach to his claim. [ 11 ] The Applicant also argues that the [NAME] failed to take into account Guideline 9 on Proceedings before the [NAME], Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics [SOGIESC Guideline]. He argues that the [NAME] erred by not taking a trauma-informed approach and keeping in mind the fact that he suffers from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic disorder as a result of the event that took place in November 2022. The Applicant states that in the psychological report he provided, a [NAME] diagnosed him with depression and anxiety which likely affected his ability to recall the details of November 2022 event while he was filing his BOC. He submits that he omitted the details but not core factual elements of his claim. [ 12 ] I disagree with the Applicant’s arguments. [ 13 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s argument, the [NAME] did not fail to consider the SOGIESC Guideline, but rather reasonably concluded that the guideline did not apply to the Applicant’s situation because “(i) the BOC narrative was written with the assistance of counsel and in a scenario where he had time and space to relay what had happened to him in his own words, rather than at the hearing where additional pressures existed; (ii) the narrative was 5-pages long and it was fairly detailed as he outlined many intimate and personal details about his experiences related to his sexual orientation; and (iii) the Appellant volunteered these new details at the hearing and he did not say in his explanation for the omissions that he had difficulty talking about what happened to him” . Furthermore, while the psychological report states that the Applicant suffers from anxiety and depression, it does not diagnose the Applicant with post-traumatic disorder or any other cognitive issue that could justify the Applicant’s omission of fundamental facts related to his refugee claim. Finally, the Applicant wrote his BOC almost a year after the fact and had ample time to amend his BOC, which he failed to do. He also provided specific rectifications to the RPD at the beginning of his interview but did not amend fundamental aspects of his BOC as he later did during the course of his testimony (See Certified Tribunal Record at pp 9, 25). [ 14 ] It is important to reiterate that while a refugee claimant is presumed to be telling the truth, a lack of credibility can refute this presumption ( [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] ([NAME] ), 2025 FC 996 at para 4, citing [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 at para 21[ [NAME] ]). An incomplete BOC, the omission of important facts related to the claims, discrepancies between the claimant’s sworn testimony and the evidence or inadequate explanation to justify these discrepancies may suffice to undermine the claimant’s credibility ( [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 440 at para 15; [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 666 at para 11, citing [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1995] FCJ No 114 ([NAME]) (FCA ); [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 183 at para 19; [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1989 at para 14 citing [RESPONDENT] at paras 19-26; [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 649 at para 22 citing [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 547 at para 18 and [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 175 at para 18; see also [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 865 at paras 22-24; [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1770 at para 10). [ 15 ] In this specific case, it was open for the [NAME] to conclude that the Applicant lacked credibility. The Applicant failed to mention important facts that are related to the heart of his claim. He stated that he was attacked by a [NAME] during the November 2022 incident, escaped from police and saw his partner get arrested. It was thus reasonable for the [NAME] to expect that the Applicant would at least state in his BOC those fundamental aspects of the events leading to his claim for protection. [ 16 ] Moreover, the [NAME] did conduct a holistic analysis by considering the other pieces of evidence such as the unsworn letters from his sister and mother as well as a letter from an [COMPANY] which seemed to have been manually modified. Although the [NAME] did not directly address every piece of evidence presented by the Applicant and does not have to provide reasons on every argument, the [NAME] is presumed to have considered the totality of the evidence ( [NAME] at paras 91, 128; [NAME]’ Union v [NAME] (Treasury Board) , 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 SCR 708 at para 16; [NAME] at para 61; [NAME] at para 47). Having considered these documents as well as the other supporting evidence, the [NAME] specifically concluded at paragraph 41 of its reasons that they were insufficient to restore the Applicant’s credibility and to support his claim. Credibility is a finding of fact, and the Court is required to exercise deference ( [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 918 at para 28 citing [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 551 at paras 31–32 and [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 704 at para 36). [ 17 ] In light of the fact that the Applicant was represented by counsel, took the initiative to make amendments to his narrative at the outset of the hearing before the RPD but not amend those fundamental to the core of his claim, and considering the time that has passed between his arrival and the time he wrote his BOC, it was reasonable for the [NAME] to conclude that the inconsistencies were of such importance that the Applicant lacked credibility on core elements of his claim.

V. Conclusion [ 18 ] For the reasons stated above, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 19 ] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-10396-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-10396-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: TORONTO (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 17, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 18, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [COUNSEL] For The APPLICANT [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Toronto (Ontario) For The APPLICANT Attorney General of [RESPONDENT] (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT