Date: 20251124

Docket: IMM-20405-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1860

Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] The Principal Applicant [PA], Mr. Yazan Aziz Deeb Al-Debs, his spouse, Ms. Marwa Mohammad Mousa Yacoub, and their three minor children [Applicants] are citizens of Jordan who are of Palestinian descent. They report that they fear persecution in Jordan due their Palestinian ethnicity and refusal to cooperate with criminal elements.

[2] The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] found the Applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because they have a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in Jordan. In a decision dated October 16, 2024, the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] upheld the findings of the RPD.

[3] The Applicants seek judicial review of the RAD’s decision under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] arguing that: (1) there was a breach of procedural fairness due to the incompetence of their counsel before the RAD, (2) the RAD erred in failing to admit certain new evidence, and (3) the RAD erred in its credibility assessment of certain evidence.

[4] Issue 2 is determinative of the Application. For the reasons that follow, I am persuaded that the RAD’s refusal to consider certain of the Applicants’ new evidence was unreasonable. This being so, I have not undertaken an analysis of Issues 1 and 3 but do note that it is not obvious that the Applicants have met the heavy evidentiary burden upon them in advancing an allegation of counsel incompetence (Oppong-Sagoe v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1154 at paras 27–28).

II. Background

[5] In Jordan, the Applicants resided in the city of Madaba, and since 2012, the PA owned and operated a café located in Mamounieh, near the capital city of Amman.

[6] The Applicants report that in July 2023, two men – who identified themselves as members of the Al Fayez family of the Bani Sakher tribe – entered the PA’s café and demanded extortion payments for his personal and business protection. The PA testified that he initially refused to comply, but the men later returned making further threats and at one point fired a shot into the café. In the Applicants’ amended narrative, the PA indicated he reported the incident to the police.

[7] The Applicants state that in August 2023, they were stopped while driving, and the PA was pulled out of their car and beaten by men who again identified themselves as belonging to the Bani Sakher. The Applicants report the men continued to return to the PA’s café and make further threats. The PA testified he then started meeting the extortion demands. With the threats and extortion increasing, the PA states he attempted to seek a tribal mediation, however this proved fruitless.

[8] The Applicants left Jordan in September 2023 and sought refugee protection in Canada.

[9] The RPD rejected the Applicants’ claims in a decision dated June 24, 2024, determining that they had a viable IFA in the cities of Aqaba, Irbid, and Amman.

III. Decision under Review

[10] On appeal to the RAD, the Applicants sought to place the following new evidence before it:

1. A written statement from the Applicants’ representative explaining the new evidence they sought to disclose [Item “A”];

2. A letter from the PA’s brother “Anan Azeez Aldabs” concerning events alleged to have occurred on June 20, 2024, in Amman, accompanied by government-issued identification of “Anan Azeez Deebs AlDabs;” [Item “B”]

3. A lease for a residence in Irbid, dated June 28, 2024, between a landlord and “Adnan Aziz Al-Debs;” [Item “C”] and

4. A medical report from a hospital in Irbid, dated July 21, 2024, regarding treatment for a gunshot wound of “Adnan Aziz Deeb Al-Debs.” [Item “D”].

[11] The RAD first admitted Item “A” (the statement of the Applicants’ representative) as further submissions.

[12] In considering whether to admit Items “B”, “C”, and “D”, the RAD acknowledged the documents were new in that they concerned events occurring after the RPD’s June 24, 2024 decision or they could not have been disclosed prior to the RPD’s decision.

[13] The RAD admitted Item “B” (the letter from the PA’s brother) as new evidence, finding the document credible, as a statement made by the PA’s brother, and relevant despite it being unsworn and undated. However, the RAD rejected Items “C” and “D” – the lease and medical report pertaining to “Adnan Aziz Al-Debs.”

[14] In rejecting Items “C” and “D”, the RAD noted that the name of the tenant and hospital patient (“Adnan Aziz Al-Debs”) differed from the name of the PA’s brother listed in the PA’s Basis of Claim [BOC]. The RAD held there was therefore no evidence linking the content of documents (i.e., the lease of a residence in Irbid for “Adnan Aziz Al-Debs” and the admission to hospital of “Adnan Aziz Al-Debs” for a gunshot wound) and the Applicants’ claim. The RAD further found it could not assume nor infer that the tenant and the hospital patient (“Adnan Aziz Al-Debs”) was the PA’s brother and therefore concluded that Items “C” and “D”, although credible, were not relevant to the RAD proceedings.

[15] The RAD also noted but did not address the Applicants’ request for an oral hearing.

IV. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

[16] The RAD’s determinations as they relate to the admission of new evidence are reviewable on a standard of reasonableness (Chowdhury v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 1101 at para 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.” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 85). A reviewing court will intervene only if it is satisfied “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).

B. The RAD erred in refusing to admit certain evidence

[17] The Applicants submit the RAD erred by refusing to admit Items “C” and “D” based solely on obvious typographical or translation errors. They rely on Nunez Quintero v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 484 at para. 27, Weldeab v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 161 at para 22, and Miah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 335 at para 11 to argue that this Court has often found that documents should not be rejected solely because of typographical errors.

[18] The Applicants also submit the RAD’s decision to reject the new evidence is lacking in intelligibility and justification. This because the RAD did not question why the Applicants would provide Item “B” detailing the PA’s brother’s assault in Amman and then provide a medical report (Item “D”) and lease (Item “C”) relating to an individual unconnected to the events. They argue the RAD should have either recognized the errors as simple typographical errors or provided the Applicants with an opportunity to address the issues.

[19] The Respondent argues the RAD was not required to admit new evidence bearing the name and identification number of a person not clearly the PA’s brother and argues this is not simply a typographical error but a question of identity. The Respondent contends there was no gap in logic in the RAD declining to infer that Items “C” and “D” referred to the PA’s brother and states the RAD gave clear and cogent reasons for refusing to admit the new evidence. Nor, the Respondent submits, was the RAD obligated to speculate on the Applicants’ motives for presenting the documents, or seek clarification where the onus was with the Applicants.

[20] Contrary to the Applicants’ position, the RAD did not refuse to admit Items “C” and “D” based solely on obvious typographical errors in translations. The RAD noted (1) that the tenant and hospital patient (“Adnan”) is not a brother listed on the PA’s BOC, (2) there was no evidence from the Applicants, “Adnan,” or the PA’s brother “Anan” establishing how the evidence relates to the Applicants or “making any connection” between the content of the new evidence and their claims, and (3) although the written statement from the Applicants’ representative submitted that the tenant and hospital patient in question were actually the PA’s brother Anan, the RAD stated the “[l]awyer’s statements may not substitute for actual evidence.”

[21] The RAD’s refusal to admit Items “C” and “D” and the justification provided in support of that finding may well be reasonable if considered in isolation. However, Vavilov teaches that the reasonableness of the impugned decision is to be assessed contextually based on a holistic reading (Vavilov at paras 97, 103).

[22] In admitting Item “B”, the RAD finds, without any explanation, that the letter was made by the PA’s brother. However, a review of the record discloses spelling discrepancies between the name set out on the face of Item “B”, the identification card enclosed with Item “B”, and the name of the PA’s brother as set out in the PA’s BOC.

[23] Unlike the RAD’s treatment of Items “C” and “D”, the RAD does not engage with those discrepancies in admitting Item “B” as a “statement of the PA’s brother.” While it was unquestionably open to the RAD to do so and to also refuse other evidence on the basis of discrepancies, the absence of an explanation for the RAD’s facially inconsistent approach renders the RAD’s treatment of the different items of new evidence unintelligible and in turn unreasonable.

V. Conclusion

[24] The Application is granted. Neither Party proposes a question for certification and none arises.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-20405-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The Application is granted.

2. The matter is returned for redetermination by a different decision-maker.

3. No question of general importance is certified.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: