Federal Court Upholds Rejection of Refugee Claim

Date: 20260116 Docket: IMM-9348-24 Citation: 2026 FC 72 Ottawa, Ontario, January 16, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice McHaffie BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] of the [NAME] [IRB] rejected [NAME]’s refugee claim, and further found it had no credible basis. [NAME] identified numerous inconsistencies and evolutions in [NAME]’s narrative and evidence, which led it to reject his testimony that he was gay and had suffered persecution in Nigeria based on his sexual orientation. [ 2 ] On this application for judicial review, [NAME] argues [NAME] made adverse credibility findings on peripheral issues and unreasonably rejected or failed to address relevant evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision. He therefore argues that both [NAME]’s rejection of his claim and its finding that his claim had no credible basis were unreasonable. [ 3 ] For the reasons below, I conclude [NAME]’s credibility findings and its no credible basis finding were reasonable. [NAME] clearly explained its credibility findings, which related to central aspects of [NAME]’s narrative and not merely peripheral questions. It also gave reasonable grounds for not giving weight to a supporting letter said to be from [NAME]’s [NAME] same-sex partner. Having reached the conclusion that [NAME] had not credibly established his sexual orientation, there was no need for [NAME] to address country condition evidence regarding the treatment of the [NAME] in Nigeria. [ 4 ] Contrary to [NAME]’s arguments, [NAME] did not fail to consider relevant evidence before reaching its finding that his claim had no credible basis. [NAME]’s reasons could have more clearly referred to two letters from two [NAME] organizations, I am satisfied [NAME] addressed those letters in its assessment of the evidence. In any event, the letters did not provide any direct evidence that could ground a successful refugee claim in the absence of credible testimony from [NAME] regarding his sexual orientation. [ 5 ] The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 6 ] [NAME]’s credibility findings, and its conclusion that [NAME]’s application had no credible basis, are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16–17, 23–25; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 186 at para 34. [ 7 ] The central issue on this application is therefore whether [NAME]’s decision was reasonable. [ 8 ] A reasonable decision is one that is internally coherent and is transparent, intelligible, and justified in relation to the constellation of law and facts that are relevant to it: [NAME] at paras 15, 95–96, 99–102, 105. When assessing the reasonableness of a decision, the Court does not engage in a rehearing of the case or a reweighing of the evidence. Rather, it reviews the decision made by the body entrusted by Parliament with decision-making power, in light of the administrative context, the record, and the submissions that were before that decision maker, to ensure that it meets the requirements of a reasonable decision: [NAME] at paras 82–86, 91–94, 103, 125–128. [ 9 ] In his written submissions, [NAME] also raised an issue of procedural fairness, contending that it was unfair for [NAME] not to have shared with him an audio recording of his hearing. This argument was not pressed in oral submissions before this Court, by which time [NAME] had received the audio recording. Any failure to provide the audio recording after [NAME]’s decision was rendered can only have related to the fairness of this judicial review proceeding and not to the fairness of the process leading to [NAME]’s decision, and any such unfairness (about which I make no finding) was rectified by the subsequent provision of the recording. I therefore need not address this argument further.

III. Analysis A. [NAME]’s refugee claim [ 10 ] [NAME] claims that he is a gay man, that he faced persecution in Nigeria owing to his sexual orientation, and that he would continue to face such persecution if required to return there. He alleges that he became aware of his sexuality in his teens and that he had an early romantic involvement with another boy at his church until the boy’s father, and subsequently his own father and stepmother, found out about it. After university, [NAME] returned to his village to handle the family’s farm business since his father was ailing. Under pressure from his family, he entered a common-law relationship with a woman, with whom he had three children. [ 11 ] [NAME] claims he met a man named [NAME] after his father’s death in early 2019, and they began dating and planning a life together, sleeping with each other in a room at the farm in the village. However, on February 2, 2022, [NAME]’s common-law partner and her brother followed him and discovered him having sex with [NAME] at the farm. They took videos and pictures of the couple and threatened to expose them. [NAME]’s common-law partner and her brother blackmailed him, but after making some payments, he left Nigeria on March 11, 2022, ultimately arriving in Canada in late May 2022. [ 12 ] [NAME] gave evidence at his refugee hearing before [NAME], which was ultimately held in April 2024. He also filed a number of documents, including notably (a) a membership card and other documents from the [COMPANY] [NATA]; (b) a sworn affidavit in his name, dated April 20, 2023, attesting to his father’s death, together with a certificate of death dated April 17, 2023; (c) a letter from a man said to be his [NAME] partner in Canada and pictures of them together; (d) a letter from his older brother; (e) letters from two Canadian community organizations, Centre Communautaire LGBTQ+ de Montréal [CCLGBTQ+] and Action LGBTQ avec les immigrant.es et les réfugié.es [[NAME]]; and (f) pictures of himself at a [ADDRESS] and a CCLGBTQ+ event. B. [NAME]’s decision (1) [NAME]’s credibility determinations [ 13 ] For [NAME], the determinative issue in [NAME]’s case was credibility. It identified five issues on which it drew negative credibility inferences. [ 14 ] First, it found a number of inconsistencies in [NAME]’s evidence regarding his addresses in Nigeria, including an address on [ADDRESS] in the city of Ibadan. [NAME] testified that this was a room he began renting after his father died in 2019, to have a place to stay when he took goods from the farm to the city. He said none of his family knew about the room on [ADDRESS], as he and [NAME] would meet and stay there when they were in the city. [ 15 ] [NAME] found that this testimony was inconsistent with (a) [NAME]’s refugee application form, which stated that he lived at the [ADDRESS] address between October 2012 and February 2022; (b) his NATA membership card and documents from 2012, which included the same address; (c) his father’s death certificate, which said his father was living at the [ADDRESS] address when he died; and (d) the fact that his brother, who he claimed did not know of the address, obtained the death certificate with the address on it. [NAME] did not accept [NAME]’s various explanations for these inconsistencies. It concluded on a balance of probabilities that the [ADDRESS] address was [NAME]’s family home address and his father’s residence before his death, such that (a) the incidents described in his narrative could not have occurred as described; and (b) he could not have been secretly spending nights with [NAME] at that address. [ 16 ] Second, [NAME] found inconsistencies and omissions between [NAME]’s written narrative and his testimony regarding events between the February 2, 2022, incident and his departure from Nigeria. [NAME] testified that he ran away from the farm to Ibadan the day after the incident and stayed with an older brother. He claimed that his common-law partner made her blackmail demands through his brother, accompanied by threats to report him to the authorities. [NAME] noted that none of these relevant facts—the flight to his brother’s residence in Ibadan, the blackmail demands being relayed by the brother, and the threats to report him to the authorities—had been mentioned in [NAME]’s narrative. [NAME] again rejected [NAME]’s explanation for not including these matters in his narrative, noting that the basis of claim form both instructs claimants to include everything that is important to the claim and specifically asks whether a claimant has moved to another part of their country to seek safety. [NAME] concluded that [NAME] was “improvising” at the hearing. [ 17 ] Third, [NAME] referred to [NAME]’s testimony that the Nigerian police had summoned his brother to the police station to speak about him after his common-law partner reported him missing. [NAME] testified that since his brother had not gone to the police station, the police were now looking for him and his brother was looking for a way to run away. In addition to noting that the testimony was internally inconsistent and evolving as to the date of this alleged summons, [NAME] drew a negative inference from the fact that this highly relevant allegation was raised for the first time in his testimony, rather than in his narrative or an amendment to it, and was uncorroborated by evidence from his brother. Again, [NAME] concluded that [NAME] was improvising at the hearing. [ 18 ] Fourth, [NAME] identified an inconsistency between [NAME]’s written narrative and his testimony with respect to his job. In his written forms, [NAME] declared that he focused on farming after finishing university in 2008 because he had no money to establish his own mechanic workshop, but that he was nonetheless self-employed as a car engineer from May 2012 to March 2022. In his oral testimony, he said he was a farmer, and that his work as a mechanic was not a stable source of income. [NAME] noted that [NAME] had filed documentary information relating to his work as a mechanic, but no documents relating to his ownership of a farm. It found on a balance of probabilities that [NAME] was working as a mechanic in Ibadan. [ 19 ] Fifth, [NAME] drew a negative credibility inference from the fact that [NAME] submitted a fraudulent affidavit. As noted above, [NAME] filed an affidavit dated April 20, 2023, attesting to his father’s death. The affidavit, which was sworn in Nigeria, purports to be sworn by [NAME], who was in Canada in April 2023. [NAME] explained that it was in fact his brother who swore the affidavit in Nigeria in order to get the death certificate to prove his father’s death and his relationship to his father. [NAME] was unable to reasonably explain why his brother could not have sworn an affidavit in his own name regarding their father’s death, but instead posed as [NAME] to swear an affidavit in his name. Nor could [NAME] explain why he knowingly submitted a fraudulent affidavit in support of his refugee claim. [NAME] found that the submission of the fraudulent affidavit by [NAME] and its creation by his brother seriously undermined the credibility of both [NAME] and his brother. This negatively impacted the evidence in the brother’s letter, to which [NAME] therefore gave no weight. [ 20 ] Having addressed these credibility concerns, [NAME] turned to the remaining pertinent documents, which it listed as being “a letter purporting to be from the claimant’s [NAME] partner, photos of the claimant with his alleged partner, and photos of the claimant participating in the [NAME].” [ 21 ] [NAME] found that the letter from the [NAME] partner provided very limited information about the relationship. It also did not accept [NAME]’s explanation as to why the partner was not produced as a witness, namely that he could not attend because it was a workday. [NAME] had said at the outset of the hearing that there was no evidence he wanted to produce in support of his claim but was unable to provide, and he had not made any request to schedule the hearing at a time when the partner could be present. Citing decisions of this Court, [NAME] found that [NAME]’s submission of a fraudulent affidavit made it likely that he also created a letter from his alleged partner and posed for photographs with the individual to create evidence in support of his refugee claim: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 117 at para 11; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 245 at para 33; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 711 at para 9. [ 22 ] [NAME] also noted that the evidence was self-serving, since the alleged partner had also filed a refugee claim based on his sexual orientation, with the support of [NAME]. [NAME] did not disregard the evidence on this basis, it considered the nature of the evidence together with the other credibility issues, the submission of other fraudulent evidence, and the inability to test the partner’s evidence. It concluded that it could not give any weight to the letter and photographs in the circumstances of the claim. [ 23 ] With respect to the photographs of [NAME] participating in [NAME] accepted that the claimant had participated in these events, but that since they were “open to the public,” they did not substantiate [NAME]’s alleged sexual orientation. [ 24 ] [NAME] concluded that the inconsistencies it identified on central and material aspects of [NAME]’s claim, together with his submission of a fraudulent document and his failure to produce a witness who could reasonably have been expected to provide evidence, negatively impacted his overall credibility. In light of “the totality of the evidence,” [NAME] found that [NAME] lacked overall credibility and had not established any of his allegations, including his sexual orientation, on a balance of probabilities. (2) [NAME]’s no credible basis finding [ 25 ] [NAME] went on to conclude that [NAME]’s claim had no credible basis pursuant to subsection 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ]. In a brief paragraph, [NAME] stated that it had considered the totality of [NAME]’s documentary and testimonial evidence, “including parts of the testimony that have not been explicitly discussed in this decision,” and found that no credible documentary or testimonial evidence had been provided on which it could have made a favourable decision. It therefore found there was no credible basis for the claim. C. [NAME]’s decision is reasonable [ 26 ] [NAME] focused his oral submissions on [NAME]’s finding that there was no credible basis for his claim. However, he maintained the arguments raised in his written memorandum regarding [NAME]’s credibility findings and other evidentiary findings. These issues are evidently related, as [NAME]’s no credible basis finding was premised on the evidentiary determinations it made in assessing [NAME]’s claim. Further, a number of [NAME]’s arguments about the no credible basis finding invoke [NAME]’s assessment of particular aspects of the evidence. In the following discussion, I will address [NAME]’s arguments related to particular evidentiary findings by [NAME] before turning to the no credible basis finding, recognizing that the two are interrelated. (1) [NAME]’s evidentiary determinations are reasonable [ 27 ] [NAME] acknowledges that there were some mistakes and inconsistencies in his evidence. However, he argues [NAME] made a number of unreasonable findings in reaching its conclusion that he generally lacked credibility. For the following reasons, I am not persuaded [NAME]’s credibility findings were unreasonable. (a) [NAME] did not unreasonably focus on peripheral issues [ 28 ] Contrary to [NAME]’s arguments, [NAME]’s credibility findings with respect to his addresses and his work did not relate to peripheral issues. [NAME]’s claim raised the incident of February 2, 2022, as a central event relating to both his sexual orientation and his past persecution in Nigeria. His credibility with respect to that event was therefore of material importance to the credibility of his claim as a whole. According to [NAME]’s written narrative, the incident occurred at a room at the family farm in the same village where he resided, where he had met [NAME], and where [NAME] had stayed with him in the past. As [NAME] stated, his residential address was therefore central as it related to where he was located at the time of the alleged incident of February 2, 2022. [ 29 ] However, [NAME]’s evidence showed direct, material, and unexplained inconsistencies in respect of the [ADDRESS] address . In particular, his testimony claiming that he started secretly renting the [ADDRESS] location in 2019 directly conflicted with his own refugee forms, the 2012 NATA documents with the address on them, and the death certificate showing the address as his father’s residence. These inconsistencies were not merely peripheral, and it was reasonable for [NAME] to rely on them as undermining [NAME]’s credibility. [ 30 ] Indeed, [NAME]’s written submissions on this application concede that it is “important to assess whether or not the persecution occurred where the applicant lived.” Those submissions go on to claim that it was “not contested” that the persecution of [NAME] based on his sexual orientation occurred in Ibadan at the [ADDRESS] address, where [NAME] lived. This is not so. [NAME]’s evidence was in fact that the incident of February 2, 2022, occurred not at the [ADDRESS] address in the city of Ibadan (which he says his family did not know about), but at the farm in the village where he said he resided. As [NAME] reasonably concluded, this incident cannot have occurred in the manner [NAME] described if he was not in fact living in the village where the farm was located, but in the city at a family address. [ 31 ] The same is true with respect to [NAME]’s conclusions about [NAME]’s job. The circumstances in which [NAME] says he met [NAME], the continuation of that relationship, and the incident of February 2, 2022, were all premised on [NAME] working as a farmer in his village. [NAME]’s conclusion, based on the inconsistencies in [NAME]’s documents and narrative, that on a balance of probabilities, he was working as a mechanic in the city of Ibadan is therefore directly relevant to central aspects of his narrative. [ 32 ] [NAME] also contends that [NAME] focused on peripheral issues regarding his father’s death certificate. However, [NAME]’s findings related to the death certificate focus on [NAME]’s submission of a fraudulent affidavit addressing his father’s death. As noted, the affidavit states on its face that it was sworn by [NAME], but he admitted (only at the hearing and only in response to questions from [NAME]) that it was falsely sworn by his brother posing as him. I cannot accept that presenting a fraudulent affidavit to [NAME] to support a refugee claim is merely a peripheral matter, even if the subject of the affidavit (in this case, the father’s death) is only a part of the overall narrative. Rather, it is central to [NAME]’s credibility, as [NAME] reasonably found. [ 33 ] [NAME]’s argues that [NAME] also focused on peripheral issues in conducting the hearing. He alleges [NAME] spent too much of the hearing on issues such as his addresses, while failing to ask questions about the danger or persecution he faced in Nigeria, including the central incident of persecution on February 2, 2022. This argument must be rejected, for several reasons. [ 34 ] First, while [NAME] refers generally to the conduct of the hearing, he did not obtain a transcript of the hearing or point to any particular aspect of either the transcript or the audio recording to permit the Court to assess his argument. As noted above, while [NAME] may not have had the audio recording when he first brought or perfected his application for leave and judicial review, he did receive it during the conduct of this application. Yet he neither obtained a transcript nor filed a further memorandum of argument to support his arguments about the conduct of the hearing. It is simply not sufficient for counsel to state that they have listened to the recording and to submit that [NAME] did not ask enough questions about an aspect of an applicant’s narrative, as occurred here. I adopt Justice Norris’s observation that it is not the Court’s responsibility to listen to the audio recording of a hearing to determine whether an applicant’s position is well-founded, especially absent guidance from the applicant as to what parts of the recording are pertinent: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 692 at para 63; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1324 at para 34. [ 35 ] Second, Parliament has tasked [NAME] with the conduct of refugee hearings, including through questioning witnesses, examining the evidence, and making credibility determinations: IRPA , ss 106–107, 170(b), (d.1), (e), (h). In performing that mandate, [NAME] is entitled to ask the questions it considers necessary to assess the applicant’s claim, provided that it does so within the appropriate bounds of its role. [NAME]’s conduct of a hearing is reviewable on judicial review (or on appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division where available), and such review may reveal concerns about bias or other procedural fairness issues. However, the Court will not lightly second-guess [NAME]’s judgment of what aspects of the evidence require further elaboration or questioning within the time available for a hearing. It may be that a lack of questioning in a particular area simply indicates that [NAME] did not consider that the evidence required further elaboration. Conversely, an applicant’s answers to questions in a particular area may raise additional questions on the part of [NAME], particularly where they demonstrate inconsistencies that require further probing. Such questioning does not itself render a decision unreasonable or demonstrate an unreasonable focus on peripheral issues. [ 36 ] Third, [NAME] was represented by counsel during his hearing before [NAME]. Counsel could have asked questions in any area [NAME] left unexplored and could have raised an objection if they considered [NAME]’s questioning improper. There is no indication that they did so. Nor is there any indication that counsel was unable to address any areas in the time provided for the hearing. To the contrary, it is clear [NAME] ensured that there was sufficient time for the conduct of all questioning, conducting the hearing over the course of six hours. [ 37 ] I therefore conclude that [NAME] has not established that [NAME] unreasonably focused on peripheral issues, either in making its credibility findings in its decision or in its conduct of the hearing. [NAME]’s personal credibility was of particular importance in his claim, given that he sought to establish both the central relevant fact of his claim—his sexual orientation—and other associated facts such as his persecution in Nigeria, primarily on the basis of his own evidence. (b) [NAME] did not reject evidence solely on grounds that it was self-serving [ 38 ] [NAME] argues that it was unreasonable for [NAME] to reject the supporting letter from his [NAME] partner on the basis that it amounted to self-serving evidence. While I agree that evidence cannot be rejected solely on the basis that it is “self-serving,” this is not what [NAME] did. [ 39 ] [ADDRESS] has recognized on a number of occasions that evidence from an applicant or their family cannot be rejected solely on the basis that it is “self-serving,” i.e. , that it assists the applicant’s case: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1217 at para 49; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1210 at para 12; [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2011 FC 458 at paras 27–28, and the cases cited in each. [NAME] recognized this, stating that it had “considered the Federal Court’s direction on the treatment of self-serving evidence and that while the panel cannot disregard such evidence, it is open to the panel to consider the self-serving nature of the evidence in weighing it.” While I would underscore that it is improper to discount evidence solely because it is “self-serving,” [NAME]’s statement is a reasonable summary of the law and conforms with the relevant legal constraints on it: [NAME] at para 28; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 14 at para 44; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 941 at paras 24–25; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1424 at paras 12–13; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 313 at para 24; [NAME] at paras 99, 101, 111–112. [ 40 ] In this regard, this Court has confirmed that it is reasonable for a decision maker to consider or refer to the interest of a witness in the outcome or the self-serving nature of evidence as part of a broader review of the evidence and the weight to be given to it: [NAME] at para 44; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 299 at paras 18–22; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1048 at paras 31–37; [NAME] at paras 12–13; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 1067 at para 27; [NAME] at paras 27–28. This was the analysis [NAME] undertook in this case, considering the [NAME] partner’s letter in the context of the very limited information in it, [NAME]’s submission of other fraudulent evidence, the other inconsistencies and omissions in [NAME]’s evidence, and the partner’s unavailability for questioning. It was open to [NAME] not to give weight to the letter and the photographs of the [NAME] partner in the circumstances, and its analysis of this evidence was reasonable. (c) [NAME]’s assessment of the evidence of participation in community events was reasonable [ 41 ] As noted, [NAME] found that photographs of [NAME] participating in [NAME] events demonstrated that he participated in those events, but did not substantiate his alleged sexual orientation, since the events were open to the public. [NAME] argues this was an erroneous finding, since only one of the events (the [ADDRESS]) was open to the public, while the other, an event for CCLGBTQ+ members, was not open to the public. [ 42 ] To the extent that a distinction can be made between events open generally to the public and events for members of a community organization that is in turn open to the public, I cannot conclude that any error on the part of [NAME] affected the reasonableness of its assessment of this evidence. It is clear that [NAME]’s reasoning was that participation in events for the [NAME] did not itself substantiate [NAME]’s sexual orientation. Whether the events were open to the public at large, or only a subset of the public, does not materially affect [NAME]’s analysis. (d) [NAME]’s limited reference to the community organization letters does not render the decision unreasonable [ 43 ] This latter point leads to one of [NAME]’s central arguments, raised primarily in connection with the no credible basis finding, but also relevant to [NAME]’s rejection of his claim. [NAME] argues that [NAME] made no express reference to the two letters that he filed from the CCLGBTQ+ and [NAME] organizations. He argues that these were important pieces of evidence and that it was unreasonable for [NAME] to fail to address them. [ 44 ] It would have been preferable for [NAME] to have made more direct or express reference to the community organizations’ letters. However, I cannot conclude that the absence of such reference renders [NAME]’s decision unreasonable. [NAME] is presumed to have considered all of the evidence and is not required to refer to every piece of evidence before it, particularly where that evidence is not central to the matter: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1993] FCJ No 598 (CA) at para 1; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FCA 86 at para 36; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at paras 14–17; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1080 at para 24; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 133 at para 14, citing [NAME] at paras 91, 128. [ 45 ] [NAME] insists on the importance of the community organizations’ letters, I am not satisfied that they are of a nature that required specific comment by [NAME]. The CCLGBTQ+ letter simply states that [NAME] is a member of the organization and used their services. It indicates that he sought assistance and support, and that the organization was happy to consider him among their members and donors. It further confirmed that he volunteered and took part in community activities. However, it does not purport to speak directly to [NAME]’s sexual orientation. In this regard, it is different from the more personal and detailed letter described in [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2017 FC 432 at paras 8, 21. [ 46 ] Similarly, the [NAME] letter confirms that [NAME] had received support services offered by [NAME] for migrants who self-identify as sexual and/or gender minorities. It notes that he had identified as a cis gay man, both at an initial conversation with an [NAME] team member and during other conversations. However, the letter again does not purport to do more than repeat [NAME]’s own statements regarding his sexual identity. Indeed, the letter expressly acknowledges that [NAME] does not have the capacity to produce more personalized letters for individual LGBTQ+ migrants. [ 47 ] It is important to recall the context and to consider [NAME]’s decision as a whole, rather than digging for errors: [NAME] at para 102. [NAME] found not only that [NAME]’s evidence lacked credibility, but that he had submitted fraudulent evidence, and had likely “created a letter from his alleged partner and posed for photographs with said individual to create evidence in support of his refugee claim.” Further, [NAME] did not omit all mention of [NAME]’s participation in these community organizations. It specifically addressed the photographs of his participation in events and social media posts from the CCLGBTQ+, finding that while they indicated participation, they did not substantiate [NAME]’s sexual orientation. This reasoning can be understood to apply not only to participation in the events but also to participation in the organizations. In the circumstances of this decision and in light of [NAME]’s other findings, I conclude that the lack of direct and specific reference to the two letters themselves is not an omission that renders the decision unreasonable. (e) It was reasonable not to address country condition evidence [ 48 ] [NAME] argues that [NAME] did not take into account the country conditions in Nigeria with respect to the treatment of LGBTQ+ people. He argues that [NAME] was required to consider the corroborative value of objective documentary evidence of country conditions, citing this Court’s decision in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1570 at para 14. [ 49 ] I disagree. [NAME]’s refugee claim was based on his allegation that he faced persecution in Nigeria as a gay man. The discrimination and persecution faced by the [NAME] in Nigeria is therefore relevant, but only if [NAME] established on a balance of probabilities that he was a member of this community. As he failed to prove to [NAME]’s satisfaction that he was a gay man, the objective evidence of persecution of gay men in Nigeria became irrelevant and did not need to be addressed. [ 50 ] As Justice Pamel noted in [NAME] , tribunals should be attentive to relevant evidence related to the social and legal realities of sexual minorities in making their credibility assessments: [NAME] at para 14. However, [NAME]’s credibility determinations in this case were based on matters such as central inconsistencies and omissions in [NAME]’s testimony and narrative and his submission of a fraudulent affidavit. None of these findings were affected by the social and legal realities of the [NAME] in either Nigeria or Canada. In this regard, [NAME] has not pointed to any particular aspect of the country condition evidence that he asserts is relevant to the credibility findings that [NAME] actually made. Rather, he simply points generally to [NAME] not having addressed the persecution of gay men in Nigeria in its assessment of the claim. Having reasonably concluded that [NAME] had not credibly established that he was gay, it was not incumbent on [NAME] to nonetheless address the treatment of gay men in Nigeria. [ 51 ] I reach the same conclusion with respect to [NAME]’s argument that [NAME] did not address the central issue of whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation in Nigeria. [NAME] did directly address this issue, through its assessment of whether [NAME] had established his sexual orientation such that he would be exposed to such persecution. [ 52 ] I therefore conclude that [NAME] has not established that [NAME]’s assessment of the evidence, including its credibility findings, were unreasonable. It follows that [NAME]’s conclusion based on these findings that [NAME] had not established the elements of his claim, and in particular his sexual orientation, was reasonable. (2) [NAME]’s conclusion that the claim had no credible basis was reasonable (a) No credible basis findings under the IRPA [ 53 ] Subsection 107(2) of the IRPA requires [NAME] to state that there is no credible basis for a claim where it is of the opinion that there is “no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision” : No credible basis Preuve 107 (2) If the Refugee Protection Division is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision , it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim. 107 (2) Si elle estime, en cas de rejet, qu’il n’a été présenté aucun élément de preuve crédible ou digne de foi sur lequel elle aurait pu fonder une décision favorable , la section doit faire état dans sa décision de l’absence de minimum de fondement de la demande. [Emphasis added.] [Je souligne.] [ 54 ] A finding that a claim has not been established, even on grounds of credibility, is not the same as a finding that it has no credible basis: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 20 at para 19 [ [NAME] (2017) ], citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 601 at para 26. As [NAME] points out, the Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that a no credible basis finding requires consideration of the totality of the evidence and not simply the credibility of the applicant: [redacted] [ 55 ] At the same time, to avoid a no credible basis finding, the credible or trustworthy evidence of a claim must be sufficient that [NAME] could have made a favourable decision. It is therefore not enough that there be some credible or trustworthy evidence; that evidence must be sufficient in law to sustain a positive determination of the claim: [NAME] at paras 29–30. Since an applicant must show that they are personally at risk, country condition reports alone are not normally a sufficient basis on which a favourable decision can be made: [NAME] at para 29; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 192 at para 24. (b) [NAME]’s no credible basis finding [ 56 ] After quoting subsection 107(2), with emphasis on the word “shall,” [NAME] set out its reasons for concluding that there was no credible basis for [NAME]’s claim in the following paragraph: The panel has considered the totality of the claimant’s documentary and testimonial evidence, including parts of the testimony that have not been explicitly discussed in this decision. Per subsection 107(2) of IRPA , the panel finds that no credible documentary or testimonial evidence has been provided by the claimant on which the panel could have made a favorable decision. Therefore, the panel finds that there is no credible basis for this claim. [ 57 ] This paragraph provides little more than a summary of [NAME]’s reasoning, with a restatement of the test set out in subsection 107(2) and a confirmation that [NAME] had considered all of the evidence. Considered on its own, this reasoning would fall short of the requirements of transparency, intelligibility, and justification required of a reasonable decision. [ 58 ] However, this paragraph cannot be read in isolation. Rather, it must be read in the context of [NAME]’s decision as a whole: [NAME] at paras 15, 84–85, 99. That context is critical in understanding [NAME]’s conclusion that there is no credible documentary or testimonial evidence on which the panel could have made a favourable decision. Most of [NAME]’s decision is directed to an assessment of the credibility of the documentary and testimonial evidence. These aspects of its analysis are relevant to both its finding that [NAME] had not established his claim and its finding that there was no credible basis for it. (3) [NAME]’s no credible basis finding is reasonable [ 59 ] As set out above, the evidence presented by [NAME] in support of his claim consisted of his own testimony and a number of documents including those itemized at paragraph   REF _Ref218847408 \r \h   \* MERGEFORMAT [12] 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F005200650066003200310038003800340037003400300038000000 above: (a) the NATA membership card and documents; (b) the affidavit in his name regarding his father’s death and the certificate of death; (c) a letter from his alleged [NAME] partner and pictures of them together; (d) a letter from his older brother; (e) letters from CCLGBTQ+ and [NAME]; and (f) pictures of himself at a [ADDRESS] and a CCLGBTQ+ event. [ 60 ] [NAME] made express negative credibility findings with respect to [NAME]’s testimony, finding that he “lacked overall credibility and has not established any of his allegations, including his sexual orientation, on a balance of probabilities.” The case is therefore different than that in the [NAME] (2017) decision [NAME] relies on. There, Justice Fothergill expressly noted that “[NAME] did not find [NAME]’s evidence to be wholly lacking in credibility,” and pointed to particular elements of the evidence which had been given little weight—but not no weight—that could have established his well-founded fear: [NAME] (2017) at paras 7, 13–16, 20. [ 61 ] [NAME] similarly gave no weight to the letter from [NAME]’s brother, given his role in producing a fraudulent affidavit. [NAME] does not challenge that finding on this application. [ 62 ] [NAME] contends that the letter from his [NAME] partner was credible evidence to which [NAME] could have given some weight and on which it therefore could have made a favourable decision. However, [NAME] found the letter not to be credible, expressly finding it likely that [NAME] “created a letter from his alleged partner and posed for photographs with said individual to create evidence in support of his refugee claim.” [NAME] therefore clearly did not accept this letter as credible evidence. It is important to note that the question for purposes of subsection 107(2) of the IRPA is not whether the evidence could have been found credible, but whether there is credible or trustworthy evidence that could have supported a favourable decision. While the partner’s letter could have supported a favourable decision if it had been found credible or trustworthy, [NAME] found it not to be, and as explained above, that finding was reasonable. [ 63 ] As neither the death certificate of [NAME]’s father nor the NATA documents speak in any way to either [NAME]’s sexual orientation or his narrative, this leaves the letters from CCLGBTQ+ and [NAME] and the photographs from the [ADDRESS] and the CCLGBTQ+. As discussed above, [NAME] accepted that the photographs established that [NAME] had participated in the events. However, it found that participation in the events did not themselves substantiate his sexual orientation. While not specifically referred to in its discussion of the no credible basis finding, it is clear that [NAME] found that the photographs were credible and trustworthy evidence (in the sense that they credibly established [NAME]’s participation in the events) but that they could not ground a favourable decision since they did not substantiate [NAME]’s sexual orientation. [ 64 ] [NAME]’s strongest argument is that [NAME] should not have reached a finding that there was no credible basis for his claim without express consideration of the two letters from the community organizations. There is no indication that [NAME] found these letters not credible or trustworthy, in the sense of being authentic letters prepared by the organizations in question. The quality of [NAME]’s reasons would certainly have been improved had it expressly and directly addressed these letters. However, recognizing that the decisions of administrative tribunals are not held to a standard of perfection, I cannot conclude that the lack of specific discussion of the letters renders [NAME]’s no credible basis finding unreasonable or shows that [NAME] failed to meaningfully grapple with key issues or account for the evidence: [NAME] at paras 91, 125–128. I say this for two reasons, which parallel those discussed above. [ 65 ] First, [NAME] set out its reasoning with respect to whether participation in the community organizations substantiated [NAME]’s sexual orientation in light of his general lack of credibility. Its conclusion—essentially that [NAME] could have attended those events whether he was in fact gay or simply making a false assertion regarding his sexual orientation—applies equally to the letters, which do not speak directly to [NAME]’s sexual orientation but only to his involvement in the organizations. [ 66 ] Second, on the face of the letters, it is reasonable to conclude they are insufficient to ground a favourable decision on [NAME]’s claim in the absence of other credible evidence pertaining to his sexual orientation. Even if accepted on its face, the CCLGBTQ+ letter only confirms [NAME]’s membership in the organization, his use of their services, and his involvement as a volunteer and participant in activities. The [NAME] letter does state that [NAME] self-identified as a cis gay man. However, given [NAME]’s finding that [NAME]’s statements regarding his sexual orientation lacked credibility, evidence that he made similar statements to a third party cannot be sufficient evidence on which [NAME] could make a favourable decision. [ 67 ] In other words, while the two letters from the community organizations corroborate [NAME]’s membership and participation in the organizations, and could, when combined with other credible evidence, help establish [NAME]’s claim, they do not themselves corroborate his sexual orientation. Given its findings that the evidence speaking directly to [NAME]’s sexual orientation (his own testimony and the letters from his brother and alleged [NAME] partner) wholly lacked credibility, it was reasonable for [NAME] to conclude that there was no credible and trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision. [ 68 ] I therefore conclude that despite some shortcomings in [NAME]’s reasons, [NAME] has not met his onus to show that [NAME]’s conclusion that his refugee claim had no credible basis was unreasonable.

IV. Conclusion [ 69 ] As [NAME] has not established that [NAME]’s decision was unreasonable or unfair, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 70 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA . I agree that no serious question of general importance is involved in the matter.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-9348-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed. “Nicholas McHaffie” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9348-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: July 3, 2025

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: MCHAFFIE J. DATED: January 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], Quebec For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Quebec For The Respondent