Docket: IMM-20178-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1961
Ottawa, Ontario, December 12, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MICHAEL RAZNEAS, REBECA ROSTAS, IOAN ROSTAS, MANDRA LACATUS AND MEDENTIA CRUTI |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”
) dated October 15, 2024, that denied the Applicants’ claim for refugee protection (“the Decision”
) based on negative credibility findings.
[2] The Applicants argue that the Decision is unreasonable because the RAD failed to properly consider forward-looking risks, the unavailability of state protection for Romas in Romania, Ireland and Spain, and discrimination that amounts to persecution.
[3] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable and the Applicants have failed to raise any issue that warrants this Court’s intervention on an application for judicial review.
[4] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
II. Background
[5] The Applicants are all citizens of Romania. The Principal Applicant, Michael Razneas, is married to the Applicant, Rebeca Rostas (“Applicant Rostas”
). They arrived in Canada on November 16, 2022, and made a claim for refugee protection at the airport.
[6] The Applicant, Medentia Cruti (“Applicant Cruti”
), is the sister of Applicant Rostas; she arrived in Canada on March 16, 2023, and made a claim for refugee protection. The Basis of Claim (”BOC”
) is dated November 26, 2023.
[7] The Applicants, Ioan Rostas (“Applicant I. Rostas”
) and Mandra Lacatus (“Applicant Lacatus”
), are married and are the parents of the Applicants Rostas and Cruti. They arrived in Canada and made a claim for refugee protection on January 7, 2023.
[8] The Principal Applicant worked in Ireland from 2018 to November 2022 and had a permit to work. During this period, the record indicates that he returned to Romania on multiple occasions.
[9] After being permanently laid off from work in Ireland in November 2022, he returned to Romania with his wife, Applicant Rostas. When in Romania, the record indicates that the Principal Applicant worked in the scrap metal and gardening industries.
[10] The Principal Applicant and his spouse’s first child was born in Canada in December 2022.
[11] The Applicants I. Rostas and Lacatus traveled to Spain eight times between 1998 and 2023 for seasonal employment picking olives. The record indicates that while in Romania they had employment in the scrap metal industry.
[12] The record indicates that both of their daughters, Applicants Rostas and Cruti, were born in Spain. However, neither daughter has Spanish Citizenship.
[13] The Applicants’ claims were joined together, and a hearing was held on June 27, 2024 before the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”
).
[14] In a decision dated July 12, 2024, the RPD dismissed the Applicants’ claims due to lack of credibility and insufficient evidence.
[15] The Applicants appealed the RPD decision to the RAD. On October 15, 2025, the RAD found the RPD decision was correct and denied the Applicants’ appeal based on negative credibility findings.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[16] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (Vavilov) at paras 25, 86).
[17] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, 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”
(Vavilov at para 85).
[18] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
[19] The standard of review for procedural fairness issues is correctness, or akin to correctness (Vavilov at para 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54–56). The reviewing court must consider what level of procedural fairness is necessary in the circumstances and whether the “procedure followed by the administrative decision maker respect[s] the standards of fairness and natural justice”
(Chera v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 733 at para 13). In other words, a court must determine if the process followed by the decision maker achieved the level of fairness required in the circumstances (Kyere v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 FC 120 at para 23, citing with approval Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79).
[20] The sole issue in this application is was the RAD Decision reasonable?
IV. Analysis
A. Reasonableness – Reavailment and failure to claim protection in Ireland or Spain
[21] The Applicants argued that the RAD erred by making adverse credibility findings. Notably, the RAD found that:
- The determinative factor with respect to the Applicants’ claims for both Section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [
“IRPA”
] protection is credibility;
- The Principal Applicant’s and the Applicant Rostas’ frequent reavailment to Romania from Ireland undermine the credibility of their claims of discrimination amounting to persecution;
- Further, their failure to make a claim for protection in Ireland undermined their claim of persecution;
- The Applicants’, I. Rostas and Lacatus, continual reavailment to Romania from Spain over an eight-year period undermined the credibility of their claims of persecution;
- Further, their failure to make a claim for protection in Spain, while engaging the services of a lawyer, undermined their claim of persecution; and
- The Applicants did not demonstrate with evidence a serious possibility that they will be denied education, jobs, housing, or government services in Romania because of their ethnicity or that the discrimination experienced by them in the past amounted to a sustained, systemic violation of their human rights or a forward-facing fear of persecution in Romania.
[22] The Applicants argued that the RAD failed to address the objective evidence in the National Documentation Packages (“NDP”
) for Ireland and Spain that clearly highlight discrimination of Roma in both countries. Specifically, the Applicants argued that once the RAD accepted the Applicants’ identity as ethnic Roma from Romania, the RAD had a duty to consider if their identity subjected them to persecution or treatment described in subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. The Applicants argue that the RAD erred because it was only concerned with incidents that occurred following their return to Romania. In addition, the Applicants argued that the RAD failed to conduct its own independent analysis.
[23] The Respondent argued that the decision was reasonable. The RAD conducted its own independent analysis of the evidence, and the decision is coherent and properly accounts for the factual and legal constraints that were before it.
B. Credibility issues based on reavailment
[24] The Applicants argued that the RAD erred by making adverse credibility findings based on their reavailment and failure to claim protection in Ireland or Spain.
[25] The Respondent argued that the Decision is reasonable and was based on the evidence of reavailment, but also numerous inconsistencies, omissions and implausibility findings. In particular:
- The Principal Applicant claimed discrimination at a level requiring protection from Romania, but the evidence illustrated he traveled back and forth between Romania and Ireland between 2018 and November 2022;
- There were several noted omissions in the Principal Applicant’s BOC including: an alleged denial of employment at a store in 2019; a beating on the street in Romania when he was younger and the denial of medial services at the hospital; and the failure to provide evidence of any discrimination in Romania in November 2022 before coming to Canada;
- While the Principal Applicant claimed he and his spouse did not claim protection in Ireland because of discrimination, during questioning at the RPD hearing, the Principal Applicant stated that they left Ireland after losing his job and they chose to come to Canada because it will be a better place and Canada provides several benefits;
- Similarly, the Applicant Rostas did not provide evidence of discrimination in Romania following their return in November 2022. Incidents she did provide predated her marriage to the Principal Applicant. Further, the Applicant Rostas’ evidence before the RPD made it clear they were seeking protection in Canada because of better education, benefits and a life for their children.
[26] A review of the Decision illustrates that the RAD conducted an analysis of country conditions in Ireland, including the NDP. The RAD member noted that while discrimination against Roma is present in Irish society, it does not rise to the level of persecution and is a subject of active amelioration and remediation by the government.
[27] In addition, the RAD assessed the personal experiences of the Principal Applicant and his spouse and, on balance, based on the objective evidence and testimony of the Applicants, found that their failure to claim protection in Ireland undermined their claims of persecution.
[28] The Respondent argued that, for the Applicants I. Rostas and Lacatus, the Decision is reasonable and was based on the evidence of reavailment and numerous inconsistencies, omissions and implausibility findings. In particular:
- The Applicant I. Rostas’ evidence of discrimination was mixed.—He testified to not having difficulty finding housing because he had money;
- The Applicant I. Rostas and his spouse travelled to Spain several times between 1998 and 2023 for seasonal work but always returned to Romania.
- The Applicant I. Rostas and his spouse did not claim protection in Spain. In his BOC, the Applicant I. Rostas indicated that he saw a lawyer in Spain to have his passport stamped. While the RAD noted their limited levels of education, they failed to explain why seeking protection in Spain was not pursued.
[29] A review of the Decision indicates that the RAD reviewed the NDP for Spain. The RAD notes that while the situation for Roma in Spain is mixed, the objective evidence indicated that Spain has taken steps to address Roma inclusion. While the RAD noted that discrimination against Roma is an issue in Spain, the RAD did not find that it rose to the level of persecution, this was in part due to the measures Spain and European governments have taken to address systemic discrimination.
[30] On judicial review, reasonableness requires courts to show deference to the decision maker. This is necessary so as to respect the “legislature’s choice to give a specialized tribunal the responsibility for administering statutory provisions, and the expertise of the tribunal in so doing”
(Villafuerte v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1448 [Villafuerte] at para 28; Lawani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 [Lawani] at para 14, citing Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd, 2016 SCC 47 at para 33; Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paras 48–49).
[31] The RAD’s conclusions demand a high degree of deference, considering the role conferred to them by the legislature (Villafuerte at para 29; Lawani at para 15; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paras 59, 89; Lawal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 155 at para 9).
[32] Further, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that applicants must provide evidence of subjective fear to be successful in a claim for refugee protection; (Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, 1993 2 SCR 689 [“
Ward”
]. Where the applicants have a demonstrated pattern of continuous reavailment, this is a reasonable basis for a decision maker to conclude a lack of subjective fear of prosecution: Obozuwa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1007 at para 25; Khakimov v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 18 at para 27; de la Cruz v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 390 at para 24; Hartono v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 601 at para 22; Caliman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 332 at para 22.
[33] In my opinion, the RAD’s findings of credibility based on the failure of the Principal Applicant and his spouse to claim protection in Ireland and their frequent reavailment to Romania are entitled to deference. In addition, the RAD’s findings of credibility based on the failure of the Applicant I. Rostas and Lacatus to claim protection in Spain and the multiple instances of reavailment to Romania are entitled to deference.
[34] Accordingly, the Applicants’ claims of discrimination that rises to the level of persecution in Romania are undermined considerably because of the evidence of their numerous reavailments. With respect, the Applicants’ explanation for the reavailment and their failure to seek protection in Ireland and Spain are inconsistent with their claims of discrimination and the need for protection.
C. Adequacy of Romanian state protection
[35] The Applicants argued that the discrimination they faced in Romania was not properly considered by the RAD. They note the extent of systemic discrimination and the lack of state protection available to the Roma.
[36] The Respondent argued that the Applicants did not point to specific errors in the Decision and are asking for this Court to reweigh the evidence which is not proper on an application for judicial review. I agree.
[37] A review of the Decision indicates that the RAD considered this issue. The RAD considered the NDP concerning discrimination against Roma in Romania, and considered the evidence set out in the Applicants’ BOCs and their RAD testimony.
[38] The RAD acknowledges that the NDP indicates that “systemic discrimination against Roma is a societal evil recognised by the government”
and noted the establishment of national policies designed to integrate Roma into society.
[39] The RAD clearly considers the evidence submitted by the Applicants of actual incidents of discrimination, but go on to note that the Applicants did not allege nor testify that they had difficulty securing employment, notwithstanding some evidence that certain employers had refused them employment.
[40] Ultimately, the Applicants did not provide clear compelling evidence that illustrated that the Applicants would “be denied education, jobs, housing or government services”
due to their ethnicity, nor that “the discrimination alleged by them in the past amounted to sustained, systemic violation of their human rights”
or a “forward-facing fear of persecution in Romania”
.
[41] The Applicants have not pointed to any factual or legal error in the RAD’s assessment of their claim; rather, the Applicants’ arguments go to the RAD’s assessment and the weight accorded to the evidence in support of their claim—This is not a proper role for a reviewing court on an application for judicial review; Doyal v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at paras 3-4.
[42] In my opinion, it was open to the RAD to find that the Applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to establish their claims.
D. Discrimination amounting to persecution
[43] The Applicants argued that the RAD erred by failing to explain why the discrimination they faced did not amount to persecution.
[44] The Respondent submitted that this argument fails to grapple with the Decision, which clearly explains how the RAD reached the conclusion that the alleged discrimination did not rise to the level of persecution.
[45] I agree—A review of the Decision clearly highlights that the RAD was of the view that the cumulative impact of the Applicants’ numerous instances of reavailment and their failure to seek protection in Ireland and Spain led to adverse credibility findings that undermined their claims of discrimination amounting to persecution. Further, the RAD clearly explains that the Applicants provided insufficient evidence of incidents of discrimination that amounted to persecution and limited evidence of recent incidents that could support reasonable fears of forward-facing risks.
E. Weight of country condition evidence
[46] The Applicants also argued that the RAD erred in its review of the NDP/country condition evidence, in its assessment of the sufficiency of state protection available in Romania and the impacts on their forward-facing risks.
[47] The Respondent argued that the arguments advanced by the Applicants were identical to arguments advanced before the RAD.
[48] As noted above, the RAD conducted an independent review of the NDP and found that while there continues to be systemic discrimination issues in Romania, there are national policies in place to integrate Romas into Romanian society.
[49] However, the Applicants’ evidence, as set out in their BOC and in their testimony before the RAD, was insufficient to establish discrimination that rose to a level of persecution. Further, as noted above, the cumulative impact of the reavailment and the failure to seek protection impacted the credibility of their claims. The RAD noted that the Applicants acknowledged that they were able to secure employment and housing.
[50] In view of the relevant factual and legal matrix, it was open to the RAD to determine the issues as it did. The Decision is reasonable. Ultimately, the Applicants failed to discharge their evidentiary burden to provide “clear and convincing”
evidence of the “state’s inability to protect”
; Ward at page 724; Hinzman v Canada, 2007 FCA 171 at paras 44-46.
[51] The Applicants argued that the RAD failed to consider the whole NDP and cherry-picked from this evidence to support the Decision.
[52] With respect, I do not agree. This Court has clearly indicated that an administrative decision maker is not required to address every single piece of evidence or every argument advanced; Vavilov at para 128; Ciurion v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 97 [“Ciurion”
] at para 29. What is important is that the decision maker demonstrate a meaningful engagement with the evidence and arguments raised by the parties. In my view, a review of the Decision illustrates that the RAD discharged its duty.
[53] Further, I am persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that the Applicants are asking this Court to give preference to one type of country condition evidence over another, which the Court is not permitted to do on a judicial review application; Vavilov at para 125; Ciurion at para 27.
F. Subsection 97(1) – persons in need of protection
[54] The Applicants argued that the RAD failed to consider the claim for protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
[55] The Respondent agued that this argument is without merit, as the RAD clearly considered the country condition evidence. In addition, the Respondent argued that under both Section 96 “Convention Refugee”
and subsection 97(1) “Persons in Need of Protection”
, the assessment to be undertaken concerns prospective risk; Sanchez v Canada, 2007 FCA 99 at para 15.
[56] I am persuaded by the Respondent’s argument. While this Court has acknowledged the evidence of general country conditions for Roma raising human rights concerns, the mere fact that one is of Roma ethnicity is not in and of itself sufficient to establish persecution. Rather, evidence of subjective and objective fear to ground the claim is required; Gaspar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 320 at para 22. An applicant bears the burden of establishing a link between the documentary evidence of country conditions and the situation they face. As noted above, the Applicants failed to discharge this burden.
V. Conclusion
[57] The RAD reasonably explained and concluded that the Applicants lack credibility and did not establish their claims of discrimination amounting to persecution in Romania. The Applicants provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate a forward-facing risk in Romania.
[58] I am sympathetic to the claims advanced by the Applicants. Unfortunately, their application is an invitation for this Court to reweight the evidence in their favour. They have not pointed to specific errors that would warrant this Court’s intervention.
[59] The parties did not pose questions for certification and I agree there are none.
Email this Content