Federal Court Upholds RAD Decision on Refugee Claims

Date: 20260615 Docket: IMM-3576-25 Citation: 2026 FC 797 Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [NAME] [[NAME]] and the co-Applicants, [NAME] [collectively, the Applicants], seek judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] finding that they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ]. The Applicants claim that the RAD failed to consider the political circumstances of their claim, misapplied credibility findings and placed undue emphasis on minor inconsistencies. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background Facts [ 3 ] The Applicants are citizens of Rwanda. The [NAME] was the owner of a transportation company in charge of transporting goods from Rwanda to Uganda. In 2015, the [NAME] was allegedly detained for three months after being suspected of having ties with the Rwanda National Congress [RNC] , an opposition political group in exile, recognized as a terrorist group by the Rwandan government. Despite being released due to a lack of evidence of his association with the RNC, his business remained subject to scrutiny because of his refusal to provide financial support to the [NAME], Rwanda’s ruling political party. [ 4 ] In June 2022, the [NAME] and his spouse, co-Applicant [NAME], entered Canada with visitor visas to attend their son’s graduation ceremony. Prior to their arrival, in March 2022, two of the [NAME]’s daughters, co-Applicants [NAME] and [NAME], arrived in Canada on student visas. However, the [NAME]’s third daughter, co-Applicant [NAME], remained in Rwanda to pursue her studies. [ 5 ] In October 2022, after returning to Rwanda alone, the [NAME] learned that his business had been taken over by his business partner and his business partner’s brother, a colonel in Rwanda. The [NAME] allegedly discovered that they fabricated evidence of his association with the RNC. The [NAME] alleges that shortly after his arrival, he received a summons and was then detained for several weeks. He also alleges that he was released after paying a bribe to a prosecutor [ 6 ] On November 2, 2022, fearing persecution from the Rwandan authorities and harm from his previous business partner and previous business partner’s brother, the [NAME] fled to Canada. In December 2022, the [NAME] and co-Applicants [NAME] and [NAME] filed a refugee claim. [ 7 ] In January 2023, co-Applicant [NAME], who remained in Rwanda, allegedly received a phone call regarding her father’s whereabouts, which led her to flee to Canada — after receiving her student visa — where the rest of her family had settled. She subsequently also filed for refugee protection. [ 8 ] On September 20, 2024, the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dismissed the Applicants’ claims. An appeal to the RAD was dismissed on January 20, 2025. The RPD and RAD concluded that the Applicants had not credibly established that they were targeted by the Rwandan authorities, the [NAME]’s previous business partner or the previous business partner’s brother. [ 9 ] The RPD and the RAD held that the Applicants’ credibility was undermined because co-Applicants [NAME] and [NAME] failed to comply with their study permits as they did not pursue their studies at the schools they were supposed to attend, as a result of alleged funding difficulties. However, the RPD and RAD also found that the funding issues were undermined by the [NAME] and [NAME] coming to Canada for their son’s graduation and remaining for many months, indicating that some funding was available for the family. Moreover, one of the co-Applicants’ uncle had previously stated that they would cover the children’s tuition and living expenses. These issues raised concerns regarding the Applicants’ immigration history and credibility, as well as demonstrated their desire to remain in Canada even if it entailed violating immigration laws. [ 10 ] In addition, co-Applicant [NAME]’s testimony was inconsistent with her basis of claim [BOC]. She wrote in her BOC that her father had told her to be careful and avoid people as much as possible, because their family is not safe. However, during her interview with the RPD, she testified that her father did not say that their family was in danger while she was in Rwanda but only told her when she arrived in Canada. She also wrote in her BOC that she received a call in January 2023 regarding the [NAME]’s whereabouts and that the individual identified themselves as a distant family member. However, during her interview with the RPD, she testified that the caller never revealed their identity despite her requests. Finally, she testified that the caller did not threaten her, but the affidavits presented in support of the [NAME]’s claim mentioned that the daughters received multiple threats. In light of the inconsistencies in the evidence and the Applicants’ testimonies, the RAD found it unlikely that the phone call occurred and that the events lacked credibility. [ 11 ] Due to inconsistent testimonies between the narratives in their BOC, their interviews with the RPD and the affidavits submitted, the RAD and RPD found that the Applicants failed to discharge their burden and prove that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the IRPA .

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 12 ] In this matter, the sole issue is whether the RAD’s decision is reasonable ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , [2019] 4 SCR 653 [ Vavilov ] at paras 10, 25; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [ [NAME] ]). [ 13 ] To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility ( Vavilov at para 99; [NAME] at para 59). The decision must be read holistically and contextually, in light of the evidence, the submissions and the context in which it was rendered ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 SCC 21 at para 47 [ [NAME] ]; Vavilov at paras 94, 97). 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). In determining reasonableness, the reviewing Court must not create its “own yardstick” and use it to measure what the decision maker did ( [NAME] at para 48; Vavilov at para 83, and [NAME]. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers , 2019 SCC 67 at para 40). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping” exercise, it is a robust form of review ( Vavilov at para 13; [NAME] at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100 ).

IV. Analysis [ 14 ] The Applicants submit that the decision is unreasonable because the RAD failed to consider the political circumstances of their claim, misapplied credibility finding and placed undue emphasis on minor or peripheral inconsistencies. They also argue that the RAD failed to assess their claim under section 97 of the IRPA in conjunction with the [NAME]’s profile as an individual who was previously detained in 2015. They also submit that the RAD unreasonably dismissed corroborative evidence and omitted to refer to the National Documentation Package which addresses how suspected RNC members are subject to torture and arbitrary detention. [ 15 ] In my view, the RAD’s decision is reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced. The Applicants’ submissions essentially challenge the RAD’s findings of facts and credibility. The Applicants do not point to specific evidence that was not previously considered, nor provide specific and adequate arguments on how the RAD improperly assessed the evidence or how the RAD’s decision is unreasonable. [ 16 ] In refugee law, when assessing an asylum claim, claimants are presumed to be telling the truth; however, this presumption is challengeable, and a lack of credibility may suffice to refute it ( [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2025 FC 996 at para 4, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 at para 21[ [NAME] ]). The presumption is notably rebuttable when a claimant’s BOC is incomplete, omits material facts as well as details relied upon to prove their claim of persecution or when there are inconsistencies between the claimant’s sworn testimony and the evidence ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 440 at para 15 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 666 at para 11, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1995] FCJ No 114 ([NAME]) (FCA)), or when the decision maker finds the claimant’s explanation for those inconsistencies to be inadequate ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2010 FC 183 at para 19). In that event, the RAD may draw a negative inference as to the reliability of the evidence, thereby undermining the claimant’s credibility ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1989 at para 14 citing [NAME] at paras 19-26; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 649 at para 22 citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 547 at para 18 and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 175 at para 18; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 865 at paras 22-24; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1770 at para 10). [ 17 ] This is precisely what occurred in the Applicants’ case. The RAD found that they lacked sufficient credibility to prove their persecution by the Rwandan government, the [NAME]’s previous business partner or the business partner’s brother. For instance, one of the [NAME]’s main evidence in support of his claim of risk is that, in her BOC, the co-Applicant [NAME] stated that her father told her that the family was not safe, that she had received a phone call asking about the [NAME]’s whereabouts and received threats by a caller that refused to reveal his identify. That evidence was undermined in her oral testimony leading the RPD and RAD to rule that the phone call did not occur. The Applicants qualify these inconsistencies as minor or peripheral issues, but I disagree. These inconsistencies pertain to the core allegations of their claim, namely, the existence of a subjective fear for the [NAME] and co-Applicant [NAME] and an objective risk of harm. Considered cumulatively, these discrepancies were sufficiently significant for the RAD to make an adverse credibility finding ( [NAME] at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 280 at para 6). [ 18 ] Moreover, the Applicants’ failure to comply with the conditions of their visas further undermined their credibility, thereby rebutting the presumptions of veracity associated with each component of their evidence (see [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1980] 2 FC 302, 1979 CanLII 4098 (FCA) at para 5; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 7241 (FC) at para 5). As stated, the [NAME]’s daughters came to Canada on student visas sponsored by an uncle who provided a promissory note stating that they will fund their nieces’ education as well as evidence of their ability to pay for their education in Canada. The Applicants’ non-compliance with immigration laws was therefore one factor, among others, used to assess their credibility and it is open for the RAD to consider an applicant’s immigration history and giving it significant weight in assessing their general credibility ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 982 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 813 at paras 37, 47-48). [ 19 ] On this specific issue, the Applicants argue that the failure to comply with immigration laws should not undermine their entire claim. I agree with the notion that failure to comply with immigration laws should not automatically disqualify an applicant from obtaining refugee status. However, the misgivings must be properly analyzed and reasonably explained. When the credibility of a claimant is assessed on a fraudulent passport that had to be procured to escape a dangerous and real risk of persecution, for example, the use of a fraudulent passport ought not to undermine the credibility of a real danger ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 7544 (FC) at para 14; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , (1989), 99 N.R. 168 (F.C.A.) at para 9). [ 20 ] However, this is not the case of the Applicants. Rather, the Applicants violated the conditions of their student visas by not attending school despite their uncle’s engagement to fund their studies and prior to the [NAME]’s alleged detention later in 2022. Moreover, the RAD’s assessment of the co-Applicant [NAME]’s evidence is also not a minor or peripheral issue but rather on a core element of the claim. It was therefore reasonable for the RAD to conclude, assessing the evidence as a whole, that the Applicants’ actions indicated that they would take any measures required to come, and remain, in Canada. [ 21 ] Furthermore, contrary to the Applicants’ argument, the RAD did assess the Applicants’ claims under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA . The RAD relied on inconsistencies in the evidence to assess the Applicants’ credibility and found that they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. The RAD is not otherwise obliged to conduct an independent assessment under section 97 in each case where no evidence warrants such analysis ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 196 at paras 41, 43, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1379 at paras 50-51. In contrast, see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 158 at para 14). The role of this Court is not to revisit the evidence by reassessing or reweighing the evidence that was before the RAD, except in exceptional circumstances which do not arise in this case ( Vavilov at para 125). [ 22 ] Given the material omission in the Applicants’ BOCs and the inconsistencies with their testimonies, the RAD was entitled to draw a negative credibility inference regarding their allegations. While the Applicants take issue with those findings, they have not demonstrated that they are unreasonable. There is therefore no basis for this Court to intervene. The Applicants are essentially asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence that was before the RPD and RAD or to embark upon a “treasure hunt for error” , which this Court cannot do in an application for judicial review on the reasonableness standard ( Vavilov at paras 100, 102, 125).

V. Conclusion [ 23 ] This application for judicial review is dismissed and there is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3576-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "Guy Régimbald" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3576-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME], ET AL. v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 10, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: RÉGIMBALD J. DATED: JUNE 15, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The APPLICANTS [NAME] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Ottawa (Ontario) For The APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Ottawa (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT