Docket: IMM-14855-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1743
Toronto, Ontario, October 29, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill
|
BETWEEN: |
|
LANDOUARD KWIZERA |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Landouard Kwizera is a citizen of Rwanda. 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 Mr. Kwizera 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.
[2] Mr. Kwizera arrived in Canada in July 2023 and requested protection as a refugee. He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution by the Rwandan government based upon his imputed political opinion due to his affiliation with Kizito Mihigo, a well-known gospel singer and activist who died under suspicious circumstances. According to Mr. Kwizera, his relative Laurence Havugimana, who worked in the Rwandan Criminal Investigation Department, sent him a photograph of Mr. Mihigo’s body lying in a pool of blood, suggesting he had been abused and killed by the Rwandan authorities. Mr. Kwizera said that he too had been kidnapped and tortured by Rwandan security forces.
[3] Mr. Kwizera submitted the photograph to the RPD. He also provided an image of a text message conversation. One of the messages included a screenshot of a Facebook post with the same photograph. Mr. Kwizera said the Facebook post was made by Mr. Havugimana in a private group chat comprising only three people. When the RPD pointed out that the post appeared to have been made by someone named Iain Campbell. Mr. Kwizera said that Mr. Havugimana was using a false name.
[4] The RPD found that Mr. Kwizera was not credible, and that he changed his testimony over the course of the hearing. The RPD also determined that his testimony was inconsistent with the documentary evidence, and he had fabricated much of his story. The RPD held that the man depicted in the photograph was not Mr. Mihigo, and the photograph was not sent to him by Mr. Havugimana. The RPD also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support Mr. Kwizera’s allegation that he had been kidnapped or tortured by the Rwandan government.
[5] Mr. Kwizera appealed the RPD’s decision to the RAD. The RAD refused to admit new evidence purporting to be warrants for Mr. Kwizera’s arrest. The RAD affirmed the RPD’s adverse credibility findings and identified additional contradictions in Mr. Kwizera’s testimony, further undermining his credibility. The RAD also found that Mr. Kwizera’s repeated return to Rwanda from neighbouring countries demonstrated a lack of subjective fear.
[6] The RAD’s decision is 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). The Court 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).
[7] 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 Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47).
[8] Procedural fairness is subject to a reviewing exercise best reflected in the correctness standard, although strictly speaking no standard of review is being applied. The Court must examine the process followed by the decision maker and determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances (Jagadeesh v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2024 FCA 172 at para 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 44-56).
[9] The RAD adopted the RPD’s adverse credibility findings, and identified additional grounds for impugning Mr. Kwizer’s credibility that were not mentioned in the RPD’s decision. The RAD noted that the screenshot of the Facebook post appeared to have 1,589 “likes”
, which was inconsistent with Mr. Kwizera’s claim that the photograph was shared in a private group chat comprising only three people.
[10] Mr. Kwizera argues that he should have been given an opportunity to respond to the RAD’s concern about the number of “likes”
on the Facebook post (citing Dalirani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 258 at para 28). He says that the RAD’s adverse credibility finding was procedurally unfair.
[11] During the RPD hearing, the RPD member twice asked Mr. Kwizera why the post appeared to have so many “likes”
. The issue was also raised by Mr. Kwizera’s counsel, who asked the following questions and received the following answers:
COUNSEL: So if you look at the very top there’s 1589 likes but right beside the picture there’s only one like. If you understand how Facebook works, why would there be two different likes.
CLAIMANT: So I think that this is not called Facebook. There was an ability that when you click on the like or any like you go to the previous page so I think you know it was I guess to easily access the post itself so when you click on the like you could now be routed to the page that the original image is on.
I think those likes 1589 refer to like the previous page on top. It’s not referring to the likes below. So the way the screenshot was taken is so there is like a page on Facebook and there are many posts. So when we took when the screenshot was taken, I guess a small portion of the likes on the previous page were included.
And as you can see below also there is another post from somebody else. So yeah, but what I’m trying to say is those likes referred to like I guess a post above or and I don’t know if it’s related to that specific post we’re talking about. Is that clear?
COUNSEL: It’s as clear as I’ll get. […]
[12] The RPD did not discuss the issue of the 1,589 “likes”
in its decision. However, the RAD reviewed Mr. Kwizera’s testimony and found his answers to the questions to be unsatisfactory.
[13] In Collins v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 665, Justice Cecily Strickland confirmed that the RAD is entitled to make independent findings of credibility or plausibility regarding an applicant, without putting the matter to the applicant or providing an opportunity to make submissions, but only where the RAD does not ignore contradictory evidence and does not “make additional findings or analyses on issues unknown to the applicant”
(at para 21, citing Kwakwa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 600 at para 24).
[14] In this case, questions surrounding the authenticity of the photograph and Facebook post were known to Mr. Kwizera. It was therefore open to the RAD to reconsider the evidence and testimony concerning this issue and reach an independent conclusion. The RAD did not ignore contradictory evidence in the record. Its conclusion respecting the inconsistency between the “likes”
on the Facebook post and Mr. Kwizera’s testimony was procedurally fair.
[15] Mr. Kwizera also challenges the reasonableness of the RAD’s decision. He argues that the RAD failed to consider country condition reports or properly address his fear of persecution. He says the RAD misunderstood the photograph and the Facebook post. He also takes issue with the RAD’s finding that he gave inconsistent testimony regarding the date of Mr. Havugimana’s alleged disappearance.
[16] Where the IRB makes a general finding that a claimant lacks credibility, that determination is sufficient to dispose of the claim unless there is independent and credible documentary evidence in the record capable of supporting a positive disposition of the claim (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Sellan, 2008 FCA 381 at para 3). The RAD reasonably found that Mr. Kwizera’s claim lacked credibility, and was unsupported by any independent and credible evidence.
[17] The RAD’s interpretations of the photograph and the Facebook post were both reasonable. The RAD considered Mr. Kwizera’s argument that the RPD failed to distinguish between the two images, and accepted that they were “separate and distinct”
, but “depict[ed] the same thing”
. To the extent that the RPD may have misapprehended the evidence, this was rectified on appeal.
[18] Finally, Mr. Kwizera challenges the RAD’s adverse credibility finding concerning his testimony regarding the alleged disappearance of Mr. Havugimana. Mr. Kwizera stated that he last heard from Mr. Havugimana in November 2019. The RAD found this to be inconsistent with the claim that he had received the photograph from Mr. Havugimana, because the photograph allegedly depicted Mr. Mihigo’s death in February 2020.
[19] The Mr. Kwizera provided the following explanation to the RPD:
MEMBER: And how about your relative who provided you the photo? Did you think about asking him for a statement?
CLAIMANT: So for him, he disappeared. We don't know what happened to him. We haven't heard from him ever since Kizito was killed in 2020 he disappeared too. So we don't know whether he was assassinated too or we don’t know where he is.
MEMBER: When did you last see him?
CLAIMANT: The last time I talked to him was when he was warning me to run away and that was in November 2019. The time when he wanted me to run away that's the last time I spoke to, spoke and heard of him. From there on he disappeared.
[20] Mr. Kwizera argues that he provided an answer to the question “when did you last see him”
, which he understood to mean seeing Mr. Havugimana in person. He says that he continued to communicate with his relative by e-mail and text message after November 2019, and there was no inconsistency in his testimony.
[21] While the RPD asked Mr. Kwizera when he last saw Mr. Havugimana, he responded that November 2019 was the last time he “spoke to, spoke and heard of him”
. The RAD reasonably concluded that this was inconsistent with Mr. Kwizera’s claim that he received a photograph from Mr. Havugimana allegedly depicting Mr. Mihigo’s death in February 2020.
[22] The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. Neither party proposed that a question be certified for appeal.
Email this Content