Federal Court Upholds Refugee Appeal Division Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260715 Docket: IMM-24188-24 Citation: 2026 FC 947 Toronto, Ontario, July 15, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME_1]: [NAME_2] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, seeks judicial review of a November 29, 2024 decision [Decision] by the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME_3]], confirming the finding of the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME_4]] that, on the ground of credibility, the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,   SC 2001, c 27 [Act]. [ 2 ] In particular, the [NAME_3] confirmed the [NAME_4]’s findings that there were multiple inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions in the Applicant’s testimony and corroborating evidence that undermined the credibility of his claims and, further, that these issues could not be explained by the Applicant’s mental health status. [ 3 ] The Applicant alleges that the [NAME_3] erred in its credibility analysis by failing to fully consider the Applicant’s mental health status in its assessment of his credibility. He also contends that the [NAME_3] rendered their decision in a procedurally unfair manner by raising new issues in the Decision that were not raised by the [NAME_4], in its analysis of certain of the documentary evidence. [ 4 ] For the following reasons, this application is dismissed. I find the Applicant has not established that the Decision is unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

II. Facts [ 5 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. In 2018, he came to Canada from Bangladesh on a study permit at the age of 18 to attend college, allegedly after having been threatened and harmed by individuals in Bangladesh who were members of the [NAME_5] and [NAME_6] [JMB] gangs. [ 6 ] The specific account of the events that caused the Applicant to leave Bangladesh for Canada changed several times over the course of his proceedings before the [NAME_4] and the [NAME_3], as the Applicant both outright replaced, and then subsequently repeatedly amended, his Basis of Claim form [BOC] that outlined the occurrences. In the original iteration, the Applicant alleged that he faced threats and harm in Bangladesh from individuals and gangsters who were members of the [NAME_5]. The Applicant also alleged that he was threatened by members of a [NAME_7], [NAME_8], who pressured him into joining the group and then extorted and threatened him. He further alleged that the police had also issued an arrest warrant for him for allegedly participating in an anti-government rally on October 10, 2018. [ 7 ] In a March 20, 2019 handwritten amendment to the BOC, the Applicant then stated that he was never a member of [NAME_8], but that the group had kidnapped him in 2015 to try to begin extorting his father, and that they burned his father’s business. In a series of subsequent amendments to his BOC, his narrative shifted multiple times with four separate amendments and additions made on March 20, 2019, March 17, 2022, August 30, 2022, March 16, 2023, and October 2, 2023 respectively, with the Amended BOC removing certain allegations and adding others. In the final version of his account, the Applicant asserted that “R” , a leader of the [NAME_5], along with the police were the [NAME_9]. The Applicant further states that both he and his father may have false cases and arrest warrants issued against them. He states that he will be harmed or killed by these parties if he returns to Bangladesh. A. [NAME_4] Decision [ 8 ] The Applicant’s [NAME_4] hearing took place over two sittings on October 4, 2023 and May 9, 2024, with the [NAME_4] identifying credibility as the central issue. On several occasions when questioned about grave inconsistencies or contradictions in his account, the Applicant stated that any such issues were due to problems with his mental health, and that this was why he was unable to remember certain facts. Similarly, the Applicant’s counsel submitted at the end of the hearing that, given the Applicant’s mental state, the [NAME_4] Member should put less weight on the Applicant’s testimony and more weight on the documentary evidence, in assessing credibility. [ 9 ] In the [NAME_4] Decision, the Member found there were an extensive series of material credibility concerns which went to the heart of the claim, and that this caused them to reject the veracity of the claimant’s evidence and his refugee claim. Among other findings, the [NAME_4] determined that the claimant’s mental state did not reasonably explain “the wide array of misrepresentations, evasiveness and contradictions that peppered his testimony” . It further determined that, on balance of probabilities, the claimant had “fabricated his allegation that he was pressured to participate in JMB activities by his friend K in pursuit of protection from Awami League persecutors (R et al), and that, owing to a fear of harm from these JMB members, he temporarily fled Bangladesh.” The Panel found that the Applicant was unable to provide clear testimony which was consistent with his final amended BOC narrative, and held his testimony to be “evasive, inconsistent, evolving, vague, and contradictory” . It determined that the claimant, on balance of probabilities, had knowingly misled the Panel, and the Member was unconvinced that memory difficulties would reasonably explain why the claimant “provided multiple different and contradictory answers to the question of how his father’s shop burned down [which was addressed in his BOC]” and found that the medical and psychotherapeutic evidence could not account for the Applicant’s testimony. Ultimately, the [NAME_3] found numerous material credibility concerns, which cumulatively, overcame the presumption of truthfulness. B. [NAME_3] Decision [ 10 ] The Applicant appealed the negative decision of the [NAME_4] to the [NAME_3], which in a Decision dated November 29, 2024, dismissed the appeal, finding the Applicant’s central allegations of past harm and future risk lacked credibility. It determined that key allegations were undermined by numerous and serious credibility concerns, which led it to hold there was insufficient credible evidence upon which to determine that the Applicant faced a serious possibility of persecution or, on balance of probabilities, a section 97 risk, and that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [ 11 ] The [NAME_3] rejected certain documents that the Applicant had sought to introduce as new evidence, holding under subsection 110(4) of the Act that most of those documents could have been presented to the [NAME_4] prior to the hearing. However, the [NAME_3] did accept sections of an affidavit from the father of the Applicant, which referred to country conditions arising after the [NAME_4] decision. It held that this evidence met both the statutory and [NAME_10]/[NAME_11] criteria ( Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME_10] , 2016 FCA 96 [ [NAME_10] ]   and [NAME_11] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 FCA 385 [ [NAME_11] ]) and admitted it, along with the copy of the father’s ticket, and his visitor visa for Australia, as the Panel decided to leniently apply Rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules , SOR/2012-257. [ 12 ] Ultimately, after its own analysis, the [NAME_3] reaffirmed every credibility finding of the [NAME_4], including with respect to the following issues, which were summarized within the Decision at para 34: Problems with the involvement of the [NAME_6] : The Applicant’s testimony was not credible. The firebombing of the Applicant’s father’s shop : The Applicant was not credible because of significant inconsistencies between the Applicant’s testimony, BOC and supporting documents. The claim that there was an active and new case against him by the authorities : There were many omissions from the BOC, vague testimony, a lack of information about the cases against him, and a failure to make reasonable efforts to obtain documentation of new case or new arrest warrant. The authorities’ case against his father and claims that his father was living in hiding : were found not credible given the inconsistent testimony pertaining to his father’s arrest and detentions and having gone into hiding. Issues with respect to hiring a lawyer in Bangladesh : inconsistent testimony also undermined the credibility of these allegations. Legal case against Applicant dismissed in August 2023 : inconsistent testimony and lack of knowledge also undermined the credibility of these claims. [ 13 ] However, in the Decision, the [NAME_3] disregarded the contradictory allegations in the Applicant’s original Basis of Claim [BOC] form, and did not hold these against the credibility of the Applicant. This was because the Applicant had explained that his original BOC had been fabricated by his initial representative, a person who was not authorized to give immigration advice or provide representation in legal matters under the Act. [ 14 ] The [NAME_3] specifically addressed the explanations given by the Applicant as to their other evidentiary inconsistencies, including the claim that the [NAME_4] had failed to properly account for difficulties due to the Applicant’s mental health concerns. Here, the [NAME_3] found the Applicant’s medical reports were unsupported by any objective testing that would have established memory issues, and that they were inconsistent, and included conclusions not reflective of the author’s professional role or knowledge of the Applicant’s allegations. It also noted that the medical evidence stated that the Applicant presented no evidence of “bizarre thinking” and had rather described the Applicant as an “adequate historian” when discussing past events. The [NAME_3] accepted that the Applicant demonstrated signs of PTSD and depression, but found these reports insufficient to explain the credibility concerns which arose from the inconsistent evidence and account of the events that characterized his claim. [ 15 ] Ultimately, the [NAME_3] found that the [NAME_4] was correct and found, on balance of probabilities, that the Applicant’s presumption of truthfulness was rebutted and that the Applicant had not credibly established that he and his father were targeted by the [NAME_5] and other [NAME_9].

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 16 ] The issues at play in this matter are whether the decision under review is reasonable, and whether it was tainted by procedural unfairness. [ 17 ] The parties submit, and I agree, that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at 23 [ Vavilov ]; [NAME_10] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1645 at para 13; [NAME_12] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1741 at para 15). A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Vavilov at para 85; [NAME_13] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 [ [NAME_13] ] at para 8). Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100), the reviewing court must assess “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility” ( Vavilov at para 99; [NAME_13] at para 59). [ 18 ] Issues of procedural fairness, on the other hand, are reviewed on a correctness standard, or at least a standard akin to correctness ( [COMPANY_14] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54-56 [ [COMPANY_14] ]; [NAME_15] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1029 at para 41). This requires the Court to analyze whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances ( [NAME_16] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 936 at para 13 citing [COMPANY_14] at para 54). The reviewing court determines whether the applicant “knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” ( [NAME_17] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 97 at para 5 citing [COMPANY_14] at para 56).

IV. Legal Framework [ 19 ] A person claiming refugee status pursuant to section 96 of the Act must meet the applicable legal test to establish there is a “serious possibility” or “reasonable chance” of persecution in the event of a return to the country they have fled. In particular, they must establish, on balance of probabilities, that they have a subjective fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion, and that objectively this fear of persecution is well founded. The claimant must demonstrate that there is a serious chance that persecution will occur ( [NAME_18] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1989 CanLII 9466 (FCA). [ 20 ] In order to establish that one is a person in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act, the claimant must establish that, on a balance of probabilities, they would be personally subject to a danger of torture or a risk to their life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, were they to return to their country of origin. This is an objective test administered in the context of “ present or prospective risk for the claimant” ( [NAME_19] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),  2007 FCA 99 at paras 14-15, emphasis in original). [ 21 ] [ADDRESS] has been clear in establishing that deference is owed to the [NAME_3] with respect to the assessment of credibility ( [NAME_10] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1106 at para 19; [NAME_20] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1375 at para 23; [NAME_21] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 178 [ [NAME_21] ] at para 23). As Justice Gascon noted in [NAME_21] , “[c]redibility issues are one of the [NAME_3]’s core competencies” (at para 23, citing [NAME_22] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 938 at para 13). A finding that a claimant is not credible may be sufficient to conclude that they are neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection ( [NAME_23] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 462 at para 24 citing [NAME_25] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1379 at paras 48-51; [NAME_26] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 602 at para 23; [NAME_27] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 414 at para 20; [NAME_28] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1575 at para 14).

V. Analysis A. Procedural unfairness has not been established [ 22 ] The Applicant has advanced two central arguments. [ 23 ] The first is that the [NAME_3] rendered their decision in a procedurally unfair manner, as the Panel raised new issues in the Decision that were not raised by the [NAME_4] or by the Applicant in their appeal materials, and did not alert or give the Applicant the opportunity to respond to these issues before rendering its Decision. The Applicant asserts that in the Decision the [NAME_3] examined certain documentary evidence which had not been directly discussed in the [NAME_4] decision, in reaching some of its credibility findings. These included an article pertaining to the fire in the shop of the Applicant’s father, certain court documents and items related to the Applicant’s ransom claims. The Applicant submits that the [NAME_3] therefore breached procedural fairness, because they did not have a meaningful opportunity to know and respond to the credibility concerns which arose from those documents. [ 24 ] More particularly, the Applicant appears to argue that as the [NAME_4] specifically did not cite or question this corroborating evidence in its decision, it should be taken as having no issues with that evidence. In support, they cite case law regarding the [NAME_3]’s obligation to provide notice with respect to new issues, as established in [NAME_29] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2015 FC 725 at paras 74 and 76 which was relied on in [NAME_30] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2015 FC 896 at paras 20 and 25-27. The Applicant also relies on the Refugee Appeal Division Rules , SOR/2012-257 [[NAME_3]], submitting that these do not indicate that a [NAME_3] appeal is to be a de novo hearing. The Applicant submits the [NAME_3]’s Decision was therefore procedurally unfair. [ 25 ] The Respondent argues that the [NAME_3] did not raise a new issue in its assessment of the corroborating evidence in question. It submits that the [NAME_3]’s consideration of these documents was in furtherance of the assessment of the Applicant’s credibility, an issue that was clearly identified and at play, as the Applicant had raised credibility in his submissions, testimony and evidence. Thus, the Respondent argues that, rather than raising credibility as a new issue when considering the documents, the [NAME_3] had simply been responding to the Applicant’s submissions. In particular, the Respondent cites the Applicant’s appellate submissions which mention “other evidence on file” that is to be considered and which request a review of credibility. The Respondent also points to the submission of the Applicant’s counsel at the [NAME_4] hearing in which they directly asked the Member to focus on the Applicant’s documentary evidence rather than his testimony in the evaluation of credibility. They note that this is exactly what the [NAME_3] did in assessing the documentary evidence in question. [ 26 ] The Respondent distinguishes the cases cited by the Applicant and notes the Court has held that where credibility is at issue at the [NAME_4], on appeal to the [NAME_3] a supplementary finding on credibility is not considered a “new issue.” ( [NAME_31] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2018 FC 246 [ [NAME_31] ] at para 13-15; [NAME_21] at paras 27-32; [NAME_32] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 1009 at para 7; [NAME_33] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 896 at para 28 ). They further argue that the Applicant cannot be surprised that the [NAME_3] would examine the documents submitted before the [NAME_4] ( [NAME_21] at paras 27-32). Finally, the Respondent argues that the [NAME_3] was simply reviewing the documentary evidence that had not been explicitly discussed by the [NAME_4], but which had been “identified by the Applicant because the Applicant had raised them as an issue in his written submissions” ( [NAME_34] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 267 at paras 18-19 [ [NAME_34] ] ). [ 27 ] I agree. The [NAME_3]’s consideration of the documents submitted by the Applicant in service of its credibility assessment did not constitute the untoward examination of a new issue that the Applicant was not apprised of, or given the opportunity to respond to. The Applicant’s credibility was the central matter at issue before both the [NAME_4] and the [NAME_3], and credibility concerns arising from inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence, including the documentary evidence, were central to this assessment and known to all parties. The Respondent is also correct that the Applicant’s counsel had specifically requested of the Member that it was the documentary evidence submitted that they should focus upon in the determination of the Applicant’s credibility. The transcript of the [NAME_4] hearing reads: So, in light of all these facts and evidence I would like to request you to, you know, consider the credibility allegation differently than usually how you review in cases where I request you to put less weight or no weight on his testimony, rather you should consider the BOC narrative and [ sic ] with the documentary evidence that were provided before you and put more weight or emphasis on that documentary evidence. [ 28 ] The [NAME_3] did exactly this, in considering the documentation put forward, and it reasonably determined that the significant contradictions and inconsistencies these documents exposed undermined the credibility of the Applicant’s account. The Applicant can hardly claim to have been blindsided by the [NAME_3]’s examination of the very documents he put forward to establish the veracity of his claims, particularly since he urged that his credibility should be assessed based on his documentary evidence, rather than his testimony. In this regard, the words of my colleague, Justice Favel, in [NAME_31] at paras 13-15, are apt: [13] In this case, the [NAME_3] did not raise a new issue on appeal because the Applicant’s credibility was already at issue before the [NAME_4]. There is no procedural fairness issue when the [NAME_3] finds an additional basis to question the Applicant’s credibility using the evidentiary record before the [NAME_4] ( [NAME_21] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 178 at paras 27-32). The Applicant was already on notice that credibility was a live issue based on the [NAME_4]’s original decision. [14] The [NAME_3]’s conclusions that the University of Regina acceptance letter and the [NAME_35] notes about paying university fees goes to the consistency of the Applicant’s story and ultimately her overall credibility. This is not a new issue because the parties already knew credibility was in dispute ( [NAME_29] at para 67). [15] Overall, this case is analogous to [NAME_36] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 380 at paras 21-30), where the [NAME_3] found additional evidence in the record to undermine the Applicant’s credibility. In this case, the Applicant cannot claim to be taken by surprise when the [NAME_3] examines the very documents she submitted to the [NAME_4]. [ 29 ] I further note the holding of Justice Boswell in [NAME_34] at para 18: [18] In this case, the [NAME_3] did not raise a new issue merely by reviewing and analyzing some of the documentary evidence which had not been explicitly assessed by the [NAME_4] as to its relevance or probative value. On the contrary, it was the Applicant himself who raised the [NAME_4]’s failure in this regard on the appeal to the [NAME_3]. It is disingenuous for the Applicant now to say he was denied procedural fairness when the [NAME_3] addressed and rectified the very issue he identified. The [NAME_3] simply referenced and assessed other pieces of evidence in the record, identified by the Applicant […] [ 30 ] I find there has been no breach of procedural fairness in the [NAME_3]’s examination of the documents in question. B. The Decision is reasonable [ 31 ] The Applicant secondly argues that the [NAME_3] erred by failing to fully consider the Applicant’s mental health status in their assessment of credibility. In particular, t he Applicant submits that his testimony was affected by mental health issues, which “impacted his ability to recall or articulate details about the legal proceedings” , and that it was unreasonable for the [NAME_3] to find that he was not credible, given this. He argues that the [NAME_3] did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the Applicant’s psychological evidence was not taken into account in their assessment and that the [NAME_3] was dismissive of that evidence. In support of their argument that decision makers are required to assess psychological reports disclosed by the applicant relating to their ability to testify, the Applicant relies upon [NAME_37] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 393 at para 33 and [NAME_38] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 964 at para 28 citing [NAME_39] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 201 at paras 30-32. [ 32 ] I do not find the Applicant’s argument in this regard persuasive. It is clear from the record that the [NAME_3] considered the Applicant’s medical evidence in some depth and, further, clearly articulated why it rejected the Applicant’s contention that all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in his evidence were explained by mental health issues. In addition to adopting the [NAME_4]’s findings with respect to the medical evidence, the [NAME_3] specifically accepted that the medical report established that the Applicant exhibited symptoms of depression and PTSD, but clearly explained why it nonetheless determined that this did not sufficiently explain the widespread implausibilities, inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions in the Applicant’s evidence. The [NAME_3] noted that the medical evaluation established that the Applicant had clear, rather than disordered thinking and that, at best, it was contradictory with respect to the Applicant’s memory, as it both said that he was an “adequate historian” in relating events, and that he could be forgetful. The [NAME_3] noted that, in any event, the medical evidence established that no objective testing had been undertaken in respect of the Applicant’s memory faculties, and also that the report’s author veered into inappropriate advocacy, an assessment that attracts deference from the Court ( [NAME_40] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 1323). [ 33 ] The [NAME_3] also traced and agreed with the [NAME_4]’s analysis of why the claims of mental health issues were insufficient to explain the inconsistencies, which for example found that: I find that memory difficulties do not reasonably explain why the claimant provided multiple different and contradictory answers to the question of how his father’s shop burned down (which he had addressed in his BOC) and the medical and psychotherapeutic evidence before me does not speak to memory or other cognitive or psychological conditions which can reasonably account for the claimant’s testimony in this regard. [ 34 ] Ultimately, the [NAME_3] determined that: I also, having examined all the evidence independently, find that the [NAME_4] was correct to determine, while noting the fact that objective tests regarding his memory and concentration were not carried out, that the psychologist reports from a qualified professional and the medical evidence establish that the Appellant had specific medical conditions. I agree with the [NAME_4] however that the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which the psychologist found concerning, together with a diagnosis of Severe Depression Disorder, are insufficient to explain, as the [NAME_4] puts it, the extensive credibility concerns of “repeated misrepresentations, omissions, and testimony that was evasive, vague and contradictory.” [ 35 ] In short, I do not agree that the [NAME_3]’s explanation was lacking, as to why it did not accept that the Applicant’s psychological evidence should be taken as sufficient to explain and obviate any and all evidentiary inconsistencies, or that its failure to do so was unreasonable. There is a clearly discernable rational chain of analysis in the [NAME_3] having done so that is, to coin a phrase, “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Vavilov at para 85). In reality, this argument by the Applicant is merely a request that this Court reweigh and reassess the medical evidence in their favour. Doing so is impermissible on judicial review ( Vavilov at para 125). [ 36 ] I find the [NAME_3] undertook a thorough, detailed and rigorous independent assessment of the evidence, and further that the Decision is reasonable.

VI. Conclusion [ 37 ] This application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties proposed no question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-24188-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that This application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified. Blank "[NAME_1]" Blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-24188-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_2] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: via videoconference DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 14, 2025

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME_1] J. DATED: JuLY 15, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME_41] For The Applicant [NAME_42] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME_45], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent