Federal Court Upholds Refugee Appeal Division's Decision

Date: 20260608 Docket: IMM-3462-25 Citation: 2026 FC 752 Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [NAME] is a citizen of Costa Rica. He seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. The RAD confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the IRB that [NAME] is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 2 ] The RAD’s decision was procedurally fair and reasonable. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] [NAME], his wife [NAME], and their daughter [NAME] arrived in Canada on July 14, 2023. They submitted a refugee claim several months later. [ 4 ] [NAME] worked as a primary school teacher in Costa Rica. In February 2023, she was assigned to teach at the [COMPANY] in Cariari, a district in Limón Province. [ 5 ] In March 2023, [NAME] noticed that two students from her class were frequently absent. Following unsuccessful attempts to contact the students’ mother, she prepared a report for the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia [PANI], the government agency responsible for child welfare and the protection of children’s rights. [NAME] sent the students’ mother a text message informing her of her intention to submit the report. [ 6 ] According to [NAME], on June 28, 2023, she received threatening text messages from the students’ mother, who demanded that she not send the report to PANI. The mother claimed that she was related to the notorious drug trafficker “[NAME]” and warned [NAME] that if she did not comply, then she would suffer the same fate as a teacher from another school who had recently been murdered. [ 7 ] The RPD rejected the family’s refugee claim on October 8, 2024. The RPD noted that the claim had no nexus to a Convention ground and therefore assessed it under s 97(1) of the IRPA. The RPD found that [NAME]’s story about the connection between the agent of harm and [NAME] was not credible. In particular, the RPD determined that the text messages she submitted were likely not genuine. [ 8 ] The RPD also noted that the family had obtained Electronic Travel Authorizations before allegedly receiving the threatening text messages. The RPD inferred that the family had made plans to travel to Canada before receiving the threats. Finally, the RPD found that adequate state protection was available to the family in Costa Rica. [ 9 ] The family appealed to the RAD. The RAD dismissed the appeal on January 22, 2025. The RAD agreed with the RPD’s determination that the text messages did not appear to be genuine. The RAD also found that the text messages did not confirm that the students’ mother was connected to [NAME]. The RAD noted the differences in appearance between the screenshots of the text messages: some included timestamps, while others did not. The RAD concluded that the “fraudulent evidence reflects extremely poorly on their credibility” . [ 10 ] The RAD agreed with the RPD’s analysis of the timing of the family’s Electronic Travel Authorizations and found that they intended to travel to Canada before allegedly receiving the threats. Finally, the RAD agreed with the RPD that the family had failed to rebut the presumption that adequate state protection was available to them in Costa Rica. [ 11 ] On May 1, 2026, [NAME] and [NAME] discontinued this application due to their departure from Canada. [NAME] has continued the application based on the allegations made by [NAME].

III. Issues [ 12 ] This application for judicial review raises the following issues: Was the RAD’s decision procedurally fair? Was the RAD’s decision reasonable? IV. Analysis A. Was the RAD’s decision procedurally fair? [ 13 ] Procedural fairness is subject to a reviewing exercise best reflected in the correctness standard, although strictly speaking no standard of review is being applied. [ADDRESS] must examine the process followed by the decision maker and determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances ( [NAME] v [COMPANY] of Commerce , 2024 FCA 172 at para 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 44-56). [ 14 ] [NAME] says that the RAD made new credibility findings without giving him an opportunity to respond. He argues that the RPD did not make a negative credibility finding regarding the inconsistent appearances of the screen shots of the text messages, and the adverse findings of the RAD were therefore new. The RPD found only that the text messages were “possibly inauthentic” , while the RAD concluded that they were “likely fraudulent” . [ 15 ] [NAME] relies on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 442, in which Justice Shirzad Ahmed said the following (at para 28): [ADDRESS] has found that where new issues arise on appeal, the decision-maker must give the parties an opportunity to respond as a matter of procedural fairness ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 725 at para 71; see also discussion in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 316 (“ [NAME] ”) at paras 15-24). In [NAME] , this Court remarked that a “new issue” is “one which constitutes a new ground or reasoning on which a decision-maker relies, other than the ground of appeal raised by the applicant, to support the valid or erroneous nature of the decision appealed from” (at para 18, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 600 at para 25). [ 16 ] As Justice Roger Hughes held in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 684, “if the RAD chooses to take a frolic and venture into the record to make further substantive findings, it should give some sort of notice to the parties and give them an opportunity to make submissions” (at para 10). [ 17 ] Both the RPD and the RAD observed that the text messages did not mention a connection between the students’ mother and [NAME]. The RPD and the RAD also rejected [NAME]’s explanation for the different appearances of the screenshots of the text messages. The RPD found as follows: When asked why the first set of messages sent by the [NAME] show the date of June 28th but the response form [ sic ] [the mother] have [ sic ] no date and appears different from the messages sent on June 28th, the [NAME] stated that she had to get the information from the phone company, and this was what they sent to them. The panel does not accept this explanation as reasonable. Firstly, the messages are from WhatsApp, and it would be reasonable to expect the [NAME] to contact WhatsApp to obtain the messages and not [COMPANY]. Secondly, even if [COMPANY] was able to provide the information to her, it would be reasonable to expect them to provide it all in the same format. [ 18 ] The RAD made similar findings regarding the appearance of the messages: The first set of messages contained the date of the conversation, and each message had a timestamp next to it. By contrast, the second page – containing the parent’s responses – had no such features. The Principal Appellant struggled to explain this, and ultimately, her explanation made no sense at all. Even though the messages seemed to be photographs or screenshots of the conversation, the Principal Appellant claimed that these did not come directly from her own phone. She claimed that they were sent to her by [COMPANY] in Costa Rica, upon her request. However, these were not SMS texts sent through her phone provider. Rather, they were sent over WhatsApp – an independent mobile phone application – as clearly marked on the page. The RPD correctly found that this was not a reasonable explanation. [ 19 ] The RPD found on a balance of probabilities that [NAME] had provided non-genuine evidence to support the family’s claim and gave no weight to the text messages. The RAD “agree[d] with the RPD, that the disclosed text messages are likely fraudulent” , and found that this reflected “extremely poorly on their credibility” . [ 20 ] The RAD did not base its adverse credibility findings on “a new ground of reasoning” . Nor did it “take a frolic and venture into the record to make further substantive findings” . The RAD’s decision was procedurally fair. B. Was the RAD’s decision reasonable? [ 21 ] The merits of the RAD’s decision are subject to review by this Court against the standard of reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at para 10). [ADDRESS] will intervene only where “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” ( Vavilov at para 100). [ 22 ] The criteria of “justification, intelligibility and transparency” are met if the reasons allow the Court to understand why the decision was made and determine whether the decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law ( Vavilov at paras 85-86, citing [NAME] v [NAME] , 2008 SCC 9 at para 47). [ 23 ] [NAME] says that the RAD failed to consider corroborating evidence comprising letters of support that confirmed elements of [NAME]’s narrative. He also argues that the RAD applied the wrong test for the adequacy of state protection in Costa Rica. He maintains that the RAD’s assessment of country condition evidence was unreasonable and ignored contradictory evidence provided by the family. This included the inability of the authorities to deal effectively with drug traffickers such as [NAME]. [ 24 ] Once it had determined that the threatening text messages were likely fraudulent, it was open to the RAD to disregard the letters of support. The text messages were the only direct evidence of the threats allegedly made against [NAME]. The letters of support did nothing to substantiate the authenticity of the text messages. The only letters that confirmed the alleged threats consisted of hearsay statements by [NAME]’s mother and son that were derived from [NAME]’s own account of what occurred. [ 25 ] The RAD found that [NAME] had “simply invented” the alleged threat from [NAME] in an attempt to strengthen the refugee claim. The most the RAD could accept was that she had been threatened by the mother of two students who were having difficulties at school. [ 26 ] The RAD considered the evidence in the National Documentation Package for Costa Rica. Its conclusion that the family failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection fell within the range of acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law. It is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own opinion for that of the decision maker ( Vavilov at para 125).

V. Conclusion [ 27 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed that a question be certified for appeal.

JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. “Simon Fothergill” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3462-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: FOTHERGILL J. DATED: June 8, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Calgary, Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent