Date: 20260609

Docket: IMM-24011-24

Citation: 2026 FC 750

Toronto, Ontario, June 9, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Thorne

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a December 4, 2024 Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] decision which had confirmed the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] determination that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act or Immigration and Refugee Protection Act]. In particular, the RAD determined that the Applicant’s allegations of persecution in India, due to his marriage to a woman who converted from Hinduism to Christianity along with his Christian faith and evangelism, lacked credibility.

[2] The Applicant alleges that the RAD’s decision [Decision] is unreasonable because the RAD erred in its assessment of credibility as it engaged in a microscopic analysis, failed to consider his explanations for the omissions and inconsistencies, and disregarded his new evidence.

[3] For the following reasons, this application is dismissed. I find the Applicant has not established that the Decision is unreasonable.

II. Background

[4] The Applicant, a citizen of India who is Christian, alleges that he fears persecution in India due to having married a Hindu woman, which he states triggered threats and attacks masterminded by his father-in-law. In particular, the Applicant states that after he started dating his future wife in 2014, issues began in November 2015. At that time her father, who has connections to the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] caught them together, assaulted his daughter and threatened the Applicant with death. The Applicant alleges that after their marriage on February 22, 2016, his father-in-law “with a few other people” attacked them in their home in Jalandhar in March 2016, and again a week later. In April 2016, the couple left their home and began living in Delhi but eventually moved back to Jalandhar. The Applicant states that in October 2022, his father-in-law again threatened and attempted to kill him and his wife. The Applicant subsequently secured a visitor visa and arrived in Canada on September 1, 2023. He states that following his arrival in Canada, “goons from the BJP party” hired by his father-in-law attacked his wife and children in Jalandhar and demanded his location.

[5] Upon his arrival in Canada, the Applicant submitted a refugee claim that was prepared without the assistance of counsel, but rather with the help of a friend who had better English language skills than the Applicant. By decision dated June 26, 2025, the RPD dismissed the claim, finding that there were significant credibility issues with Applicant’s allegations. With the assistance of counsel, the Applicant appealed the RPD decision, seeking to admit new evidence under Rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257 [RAD Rules]. He also requested an oral hearing at the RAD pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the Act.

[6] The RAD dismissed the appeal, finding the Applicant’s central allegations of past harm and future risk lacked credibility. It determined that the 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.

[7] In particular, upon their review of the record, the RAD found that:

1. The Applicant’s arguments regarding RPD bias, unfairness and procedural problems had no merit.

2. The RPD had correctly identified “numerous” inconsistencies and omissions that were not reasonably explained.

3. The omission from his original and amended Basis of Claim [BOC] of the fact that he was an evangelist who propagated Christianity and that this had caused a different agent of persecution, the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS], to pursue him was not reasonably explained.

4. There was an inconsistency about his time spent in Delhi which was not reasonably explained by his friend not understanding English when translating the original Basis of Claim.

5. There were significant inconsistencies concerning his medical documents and injuries.

6. There were numerous unexplained omissions from the amended narrative.

7. Additional credibility issues arose from the documentary evidence, which had revealed other contradictions with his narrative and oral evidence.

8. While the RPD had committed an error by overreaching in certain of its credibility findings, the RPD had correctly assessed the Applicant’s residual profile as an “ordinary Christian man”.

[8] In the Decision, the RAD accepted one of the media articles submitted by the Applicant as admissible new evidence. However, it did not hold an oral hearing, as the Panel found the new evidence did not raise a serious issue regarding the Applicant’s credibility nor justify allowing or rejecting the claim, as it did not overcome the credibility problems.

[9] The RAD also determined that the RPD had not proceeded in a procedurally unfair manner, noting that the Applicant had articulated no arguments or specific examples of issues in this respect.

[10] It further acknowledged that while the Applicant was entitled to the presumption of truthfulness, this had been undermined by numerous inconsistencies and omissions which were not reasonably explained.

[11] Among these were the Applicant’s assertion that in October 2022, his father-in-law threatened and attempted to kill him and his wife. Upon review, the RAD drew a negative inference from unexplained inconsistencies between the diagnosis detailed in the medical documentation and the Applicant’s testimony as to his injuries.

[12] Similarly, the RAD noted that during the Applicant’s testimony he had, for the first time testified to other details which were not in his BOC narratives, and the RPD drew a negative inference from these omissions and evolutions. For example, the Applicant testified that he was in danger prior to coming to Canada due to the existence of a social media post with a caption that read “we are not going to let this person alone”, but later he stated this had merely been told to him. Further, the Applicant testified that he was also at threat from the RSS, and the reason they hated him was due to his evangelizing. The RAD noted that such evangelism, his proselytizing, and for that matter that he faced a threat from the RSS at all, were not mentioned in his BOC. When confronted with this omission at the hearing, the Applicant repeatedly stated his friend who helped him with his original BOC neglected to include this information, however the RPD noted that it was not reasonable for the Applicant not to have added this information into their Amended BOC, which was prepared when they were later represented by their own counsel. The RAD echoed this finding.

[13] However, the RAD found the RPD’s other credibility findings unnecessary and “too weak to be correct” and drew no further negative credibility inferences. Ultimately though, the RAD did not find credible, on balance of probabilities, the Applicant’s allegations of past harm, a vendetta against him, or his profile as an evangelical proselytizer.

[14] Finally, the RAD summarized and addressed the remaining arguments of the Applicant which refer to Internal Flight Alternative, that his testimony had not been impugned in any way, that he would be persecuted for speaking up against a “lustful and salacious group of politically connected lewds”, and that his parents face harassment and extortion from the police in India. The Panel found these arguments either unsupported by the cited case law or simply inaccurate and disconnected from his appeal, concluding “[i]t is completely unclear to me where these arguments arose, or what they refer to, and I find they are totally without merit”.

III. Issue and Standard of Review

[15] The sole issue in this matter is whether the Decision under review is reasonable.

[16] In this respect, the role of a court reviewing a decision of an administrative decision maker is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). 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).

IV. Legal Framework

[17] A person claiming refugee status pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act must meet the applicable legal test to establish that 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 (Adjei v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1989 CanLII 9466 (FCA)).

[18] 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” (Sanchez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 99 at paras 14-15, emphasis in original).

[19] The Court has been clear in establishing that deference is owed to the RAD with respect to the assessment of credibility (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1106 at para 19; Aldaher v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1375 at para 23; Sary v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 178 [Sary] at para 23). As Justice Gascon noted in Sary, “[c]redibility issues are one of the RAD’s core competencies” (at para 23, citing Pepaj v Canada (Minister of 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 (Guadarrama Vazquez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 462 at para 24 citing Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1379 at paras 48 to 51; Matsika v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 602 at para 23; Labana v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 414 at para 20; Pedro v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1575 at para 14).

[20] Section 110 of the Act governs RAD appeals from decisions of the Refugee Protection Division. Though the RAD may, at its discretion, hold a hearing where new documentary evidence is introduced that meets three criteria set out in subsection 110(6), under s 110(3), the RAD generally determines appeals without a hearing, relying on the RPD record and written submissions. Indeed, the RAD is not obliged to exercise its discretion to hold a hearing even if the three criteria of subsection 110(6) are met, but it must exercise that discretion reasonably in the circumstances of the case (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1389 at para 11; Zhuo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 911 at para 11).

V. Analysis

A. The Decision is reasonable

[21] For the reasons that follow, I cannot find the Decision to be unreasonable and I dismiss this application for judicial review. The Applicant has failed to establish any reviewable errors.

[22] I note that the Applicant was originally unrepresented in this matter, but was able to retain pro bono counsel shortly before the hearing. I commend Applicant’s counsel for stepping in at the last moment and being prepared and able to proceed on such short notice. The Applicant largely argues that the RAD had engaged in a microscopic analysis of the evidence. They contend the RAD erred in its credibility findings, as it had failed to consider his explanations for the various omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence, and had further not considered new evidence post-dating his departure that he had submitted (citing Kanthasamy v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61; s 110(4) of the Act). As he also did before the RAD, the Applicant points to his reliance on a friend who helped to draft his original refugee claim, saying that person failed to include all details in his original Basis of Claim. The Applicant also cited a language barrier, mental stress, trauma, anxiety and lack of sleep to explain the various inconsistencies and omissions in his evidence and testimony at the RPD hearing. Finally, he argues that the new evidence of attacks against his wife and children post-dating his departure indicate his continued risk and that this evidence was not available at the time of the original RPD decision.

[23] The Respondent submits that: (1) the credibility findings were reasonable and the accumulation of negative credibility findings on an issue core to the claim may be found reasonable (citing Lawani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 [Lawani] at para 22); (2) the supporting documentation was at times internally inconsistent and insufficient to overcome the lack of credibility on the Applicant’s core claims (Lawani at para 24; Kaiyaga v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 541 at paras 55-56; Brahim v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1215 at para 17); and (3) several of the Applicant’s additional submissions are meritless, irrelevant, do not engage with the reasoning of the RAD, attack the RPD decision not the RAD Decision, or attempt to argue the issue of Internal Flight Alternative when the determinative issue at the RAD was that of credibility.

[24] Despite the able submissions of counsel for the Applicant, upon review of the evidence and submissions of the parties in this matter, I do not find the arguments of the Applicant to be persuasive, and cannot find that the Applicant has established the Decision of the RAD to be unreasonable. In my view, the RAD’s analysis is thorough, detailed and clearly sets out the decision maker’s reasoning in a transparent and intelligible manner. The RAD established that their credibility concerns pertained to key issues which went to the core of the Applicant’s central allegations. It established that among the key inconsistencies and omissions that gave rise to the credibility concerns were that:

• -The RSS was only named as an additional agent of harm during the RPD hearing.

• -The threatening calls from the father-in-law while the Applicant was living in Delhi in 2017 were omitted from the BOC narratives, but later suddenly added during the RPD hearing.

• -There was a clearly inconsistent recounting of what injuries he had sustained from the attack in 2022.

• -The existence of a threatening social media post, including his photo and a caption that read “we are not going to let this person alone”, was omitted from his BOC narratives, but again added only during the RPD hearing.

• -It was only during the RPD hearing that the Applicant indicated he engaged in evangelism and proselytizing, that these activities had also put him at risk, and that mention of any such activities and risk was wholly omitted from the BOC narrative.

[25] I note that the Applicant’s explanations for these rather glaring inconsistencies and omissions – for example, that a friend fluent in English had failed to include all his details in his original Basis of Claim and that stress and trauma had affected his testimony – were clearly considered by the RAD. Here, the RAD noted the RPD had confirmed with the Applicant that his Amended Basis of Claim was true and correct, and further that his Amended Basis of Claim had been prepared when the Applicant was represented by counsel, so any such omissions or mistranslations could have been corrected. I see no error in the RAD’s analysis on this point. While I am sympathetic to the stress and anxiety of an RPD hearing, I agree with the RAD that the RPD Panel was clear, the Applicant was represented, and nor had there been any evidence of a request for accommodation or indication that trauma was impacting his testimony before the RPD. Instead, the Applicant had repeatedly blamed any issues on his friend failing to include all the information in the Applicant’s original BOC.

[26] I also note that it is evident the RAD did not simply reiterate the findings of the RPD, but rather rejected certain of the RPD’s negative credibility findings, addressing errors that it found in the RPD’s analysis. The RAD also declined to follow the RPD’s weighing of the remaining documents, instead directly finding this to be an “overreach”, and rather that it independently assigned those documents weight and duly considered them along with the other credibility issues that the RAD had pinpointed. The RAD is entitled to independently assess the documentary evidence or make credibility findings (Akram v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 785 at paras 18-20). I find no error in its conclusion that these items of documentary evidence do not overcome the numerous other credibility issues it had identified.

[27] In their materials, the Applicant submits that the RAD failed to consider the country condition evidence concerning persecution of Christians in India. Relying on Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), the Applicant also argues that the RAD “dismissed the appellant’s claim of persecution and suggested the possibility of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) within India”. This argument appears misplaced, as while it is true that Internal Flight Alternative was raised as an issue by the RPD at the beginning of the first day of hearings, the determinative issue in both the RPD and RAD decisions was rather credibility. In any event, the RAD acknowledged, considered and explicitly referred to objective evidence of risks faced by Christians in India, but ultimately found the Applicant had not provided evidence of a personal residual profile which would indicate he faced risk within the meaning of s 96 or 97(1).

[28] It is also clear that the RAD adhered to the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act in determining that the bulk of the Applicant’s new evidence could not be admitted. I note that a reviewing court does not revisit the question of whether new evidence should have been accepted by the RAD, but rather only considers whether the Panel’s decision to admit that new evidence was reasonable (Moyo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1899 at para 33; Khan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 438 at paras 28, 32; Dugarte de Lopez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 707 para 16; Akanniolu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 311 at para 41).

[29] In this regard, I can find no justification for this Court’s intervention in the RAD’s assessment of the new evidence. The Applicant’s Affidavit contained information that the RAD reasonably found could have been available before the hearing. On the remaining new evidence, the RAD proceeded by first applying the RAD Rule 29(4)(a) to (c), then applied the statutory requirements as set out in the Act and the common law Singh/Raza criteria (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, 2016 FCA 96 [Singh] and Raza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 [Raza]). It was open to the RAD to consider the evidence in the context of the wider credibility concerns.

[30] Finally, in their materials the Applicant raises the notion of bias and unjust dismissal of evidence, in arguing that an article about attacks against Christians should have been admitted by the RAD. In particular, the Applicant had argued before the RAD that the Refugee Protection Division Member had “disproportionately emphasized perceived inconsistencies while disregarding corroborative evidence” and dismissed documentary evidence and country condition evidence.

[31] The RAD’s determinations about alleged breaches of procedural fairness by the RPD are reviewed on a reasonableness standard (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 993 at para 27 citing Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 912 at para 13; Lokhande v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1362 at para 7; Ayub v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1382 at para 14; Imafidon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1592 at paras 24-25; Rodas Tejeda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 215 at paras 47-51; Rodriguez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 774 at paras 14-20; Vavilov, at paras 23 and 25). I note that with respect to the allegations of bias, the RAD directly addressed these submissions in its Decision and furthermore found the Applicant’s arguments in this regard lacked specificity. They were also reasonably rejected by the RAD.

[32] In short, the issues the Applicant raises are, in essence, a request for this Court to reweigh and reassess the evidence in their favour. Doing so is impermissible on judicial review (Vavilov at para 125). I am mindful that the Applicant was originally self-represented in this judicial review, and that he has stated in his claim materials that he is not fluent in English. However, I do not find that the RAD’s evaluation was somehow microscopic or overzealous. I find the RAD undertook a thorough, detailed and rigorous independent assessment of the evidence, and further that the Decision is reasonable.

VI. Conclusion

[33] This application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties proposed no question for certification, and I agree that none arises. No costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in IMM-24011-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question of general importance is certified.

3. No costs are awarded.

"Darren R. Thorne"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: