Refugee Protection Claim Rejected for Lack of Credible Identity Evidence

Date: 20260707 Docket: IMM-8345-25 Citation: 2026 FC 913 Ottawa, Ontario, July 7, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Associate Chief Justice St-Louis BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] On December 12, 2022, the Applicant arrived in Canada from the United-States and claimed refugee protection soon thereafter, presenting herself as [NAME], a citizen of South Sudan. In her Basis of Claim form, the Applicant alleged a fear of persecution from her husband, due to intimate partner violence. [ 2 ] During the hearing of her claim before the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]], when answering questions from the decision-maker, the Applicant outlined she had previously remitted certain documents to her counsel, who proceeded to send said documents, on the day of the hearing, to the decision-maker. [ 3 ] On July 18, 2024, the [NAME] rejected the Applicant’s claim and found she was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The [NAME] found the determinative issue to be the Applicant’s identity and her credibility vis-à-vis her identity. The [NAME]: (1) gave little weight to the Applicant’s passport in establishing her identity; (2) found important inconsistencies on how the Applicant procured and got this passport that significantly undermined its authenticity and/or reliability to establish her identity as a national of South Sudan; (3) found her nationality certificate to likely be fraudulent based on inconsistencies in how she procured it and on irregularities with the photo; (4) found the nationality certificate of her mother to likely be fraudulent as well based on unexplained inconsistencies; (5) found the Applicant provided inconsistent evidence regarding her family, (i.e. number and name of siblings, date of her father’s passing, age of her mother), and failed to provide reasonable explanations. Ultimately, the [NAME] determined that, on a balance of probabilities, the Applicant failed to produce sufficient credible evidence to establish her identity as a national of South Sudan, as required by Section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 4 ] The Applicant appealed the [NAME] decision before the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]]. [NAME], the Applicant filed 12 documents, referred to as new evidence, her own affidavit, and a memorandum of argument. On February 10, 2025, [NAME] dismissed the appeal and confirmed the [NAME] decision. [NAME] found the [NAME] was correct to find the Applicant had failed to establish her identity. [ 5 ] [NAME] noted that the Applicant did not explain how the evidence she adduced before [NAME] met the admissibility requirements. [NAME] first found that counsel’s oversight was remedied by the submission of documents during the [NAME] hearing and that the Applicant was provided with a fair opportunity to provide documents to the [NAME]. [NAME] also found the remaining new evidence inadmissible as it predated the [NAME] rejection. The Applicant does not challenge this finding before the Court. [ 6 ] [NAME] determined that the Applicant’s memorandum of argument did not identify how and where the [NAME] erred. Said memorandum indeed consisted largely of a lengthy recitation of general legal principles and case law much of which had limited or no apparent connection to her actual circumstances, and raised no arguments against the decision actually rendered by the [NAME]. However, [NAME] examined the statements the Applicant had affirmed to in her affidavit and: (1) noted that the Applicant’s counsel did make submissions on her identity at the [NAME] level; (2) concluded, based on the evidence, that it was incorrect to say that she is unsophisticated and that the [NAME] did not take her circumstances into consideration before it arrived at its decision; and (3) concluded that the Applicant’s lack of credibility was not reasonably explained by her nervousness and the trauma alleged, adding that there was no psychological or psychiatric report on file to support the Applicant’s allegations of trauma. [NAME] concluded that the [NAME] was correct to find that the Applicant failed to establish her identity, which, it stressed, is a threshold issue. [ 7 ] Before the Court, the Applicant sought to adduce new evidence in the form of a case summary of a social worker. At the hearing, I found this new evidence inadmissible as it was not before the decision-maker and none of the exceptions applied ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1182; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FC 374, at para 17). [ 8 ] At the hearing, I also confirmed to the parties that I would not entertain arguments that were not raised first before [NAME]. The Applicant thus confirmed that her arguments were that [NAME] erred: (1) in confirming the [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant was not credible, when in fact the credibility issues arose from her not understanding the stakes of the identity issue and from her counsel’s failures, rather than from any dishonesty on her part; and (2) by confirming the [NAME] finding that she was sophisticated which is unsupported once her actual education, employment, and travel history are considered. [ 9 ] For the reasons outlined below, both these arguments must fail; I will therefore dismiss the Application for judicial review. In brief, the Applicant did not meet her burden to demonstrate that [NAME] decision is unreasonable.

II. Analysis [ 10 ] The identity of a refugee protection claimant is a preliminary and fundamental issue, and failure to establish identity is fatal to a claim for refugee protection ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1049, at para 28). [ 11 ] Section 106 of the IRPA expressly states that the [NAME] must take into account, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation. The Applicant bore the burden of establishing her identity based on acceptable documentation. [ 12 ] Under  Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ], the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. Where the reasonableness standard applies, “the burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable” ( Vavilov at para 100). [ 13 ] 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. The reasonableness standard requires that a reviewing court defer to such a decision ( Vavilov at para 85). The reviewing court must adopt an attitude of restraint and intervene “only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” ( Vavilov at para 13), without reweighing and reassessing the evidence before it ( Vavilov  at para 125; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at paras 3-5 ) . Flaws must be more than superficial for the reviewing court to overturn an administrative decision: the Court must be satisfied that 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). [ 14 ] The Applicant submits first, that [NAME] erred by confirming the [NAME]’s finding that she was not credible; particularly, that the credibility issues arose from her not understanding the stakes of the identity issue and from her counsel’s failure in late filing of documents. [ 15 ] The Applicant has not established [NAME] erred. [NAME] reasonably concluded that the Applicant was put on notice that identity was an issue and that counsel made submissions on identity. There is no mention that either the Applicant or her counsel did not understand the issue regarding identity or its importance when it was pointed out by the [NAME]; [NAME]’s determination is clearly supported by the transcript of the hearing. In regard to the lawyer’s failure to file the identity documents in advance of the hearing, I note that the documents were filed during the hearing, and that they were accepted in the record and considered by the [NAME]. [NAME] reasonably, and in fact correctly, concluded that the Applicant was provided with a fair opportunity to provide documents to the [NAME] and that the [NAME] did not make a negative credibility inference based on the lateness of the disclosure. The Applicant has not, neither before [NAME] nor before this Court, explained if or how counsel’s conduct disadvantaged her; she has not alleged a breach of procedural fairness on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, nor has the Applicant met the substantive test for a breach of this nature ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2022 FC 522 at para 23). [ 16 ] The Applicant submits, second, that she is not a sophisticated claimant, contrary to the [NAME] and [NAME]’s finding. She submits that English being an official language in South Sudan, Kenya, and Uganda does not make her sophisticated, and that Canadian-spoken English is different enough from what she knew that she struggled to understand certain words at her hearing without knowing what to do about it. She also points out that she completed only a one-year diploma, not a degree, that her only job at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was as a cleaner, and that her travel history was limited to brief study trips to Uganda and Kenya. She adds that it is not difficult to find a lawyer and submits none of these assertions support treating her as sophisticated or holding her to a higher standard. [ 17 ] It is useful to outline what the [NAME] stated at paragraph 10 of its decision: “(..) I am also mindful of the claimant’s personal circumstances. I note that she is fluent in English. She has stated that she completed secondary school and a year of university. She has indicated that she has been employed, including as a cleaner for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She has resided in Canada since December 2022, approximately a year and a half. I find that she is not a particularly unsophisticated claimant. Additionally, she has had the assistance of counsel.” Hence, the [NAME] did not find her not to be unsophisticated because she was able to find and retain counsel, as the Applicant asserted to the Court. [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that the Applicant is not unsophisticated, noting that she attended school in Kenya and Uganda, found employment at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, applied for travel documents albeit with the help of others and fled South Sudan, and that these are the actions of a resourceful individual. [ 18 ] The Applicant has not convinced me that [NAME]’s conclusion is unreasonable or that the decision-maker held her to a higher standard. Furthermore, and in any event, I have not been convinced that, had [NAME] erred by considering the Applicant not unsophisticated, as it did, rather than unsophisticated, as she asserts she is, it would have been fatal. [ 19 ] In conclusion, the Applicant has not demonstrated the decision rendered by [NAME] is unreasonable and I will consequently dismiss the application for judicial review.

JUDGMENT IMM-8345-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified. No costs are awarded. “Martine St-Louis” Associate Chief Justice FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8345-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA DATE OF HEARING: JULY 2, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: aSSOCIATE chief justice ST-LOUIS DATED: july 7, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], ON For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, ON For The Respondent