Docket: IMM-4225-25
Citation: 2026 FC 368
Ottawa, Ontario, March 18, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Acting Chief Justice St-Louis
|
BETWEEN: |
|
JAGJIT SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Mr. Jagit Singh, an Indian citizen, seeks judicial review of the redetermination decision rendered by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] on February 3, 2025, that dismissed his appeal and confirmed the decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]. In its determination of the appeal, the RAD concluded that the RPD was correct in finding that Mr. Singh is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The RAD determined that Mr. Singh had not provided credible and reliable evidence to establish his allegations of having been targeted and tortured by authorities in India for his connection with a particular individual and for being perceived to be a militant. The RAD disagreed with some of the RPD's credibility findings but found that there were still material inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence that had not been reasonably explained. The RAD particularly pointed to inconsistencies as to the location of the police violence and as to Mr. Singh’s actions after being released, both core elements of his claim. The RAD’s credibility findings are unchallenged before the Court.
[2] On redetermination, the RAD reviewed the medical evidence, as directed by the Federal Court. While the RAD did not confirm the authenticity of the medical certificate, it outlined there was no reason to doubt its authenticity. The RAD noted that the medical certificate corroborates that Mr. Singh sustained certain injuries in March of 2017 but noted as well that the medical certificate did not state what events caused these injuries. The RAD accepted that some of the injuries listed on the medical certificate were consistent with torture and it thus assigned some weight to it. However, considering the medical certificate cumulatively with the other documents provided, the RAD determined that it was insufficient to overcome the cumulative impact of the unexplained concerns in the evidence.
[3] Ultimately, the RAD found the medical certificate insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Singh endured torture or that he was detained by the Indian authorities in 2017 on account of his connection and the perception he was sympathetic to militants.
[4] Mr. Singh raises only one argument on this application. He submits that the RAD committed a reviewable error, in its analysis and redetermination that Mr. Singh was not credible, as it failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that the medical certificate was insufficient to overcome the cumulative impact of the unexplained concerns that had arisen in the evidence.
[5] The jurisprudence has clearly determined, and the parties agree, that the standard of reasonableness applies to assessments of credibility made by the RPD and the RAD (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 7; Lawani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 at para 13 [Lawani]. On judicial review, the Court does not lightly interfere with the RAD’s credibility findings.
[6] Before the Court, the onus is on the applicant to establish the RAD’s decision as unreasonable. 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”
(Vavilov at para 100). 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; Doyle v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at para 3-5).
[7] I also bear in mind, importantly, as the Supreme Court of Canada indicated, that the reasonableness review is not a line-by-line treasure hunt for error; the Court must be able to trace the decision maker’s reasoning without encountering any fatal flaws in its overarching logic, and it must be satisfied that “there is [a] line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived”
(Vavilov at para 102, citing Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, 2003 SCC 20, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247, at para 55).
[8] In addition, written reasons given by an administrative body must not be assessed against a standard of perfection (Vavilov at para 91). As Justice Denis Gascon stated in Paulo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 990 at para 62 “[T]he reasons for a decision do not need to be perfect or even comprehensive. They only need to be comprehensible and justified. The reasonableness standard does not concern a decision’s degree of perfection, but only its reasonableness (
Vavilov at para 91;
Bhatia v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1000 at para 29)”
.
[9] Here, I am satisfied the RAD provided sufficient reasoning for us to understand how and why the medical certificate is per se insufficient to establish, on balance, the core allegations Mr. Singh had advanced, ie that he endured torture or that he was detained by the Indian authorities in 2017 on account of his connection and the perception he was sympathetic to militants. The RAD’s weighing of the medical certificate against the rest of the evidence, in light of the unchallenged credibility findings, suffers no flaws.
[10] Mr. Singh has not met his burden to establish that the RAD’s decision is unreasonable. Although succinct, the RAD’s reasons are comprehensive and justified, and the application for judicial review will consequently be dismissed. Based on the record and the law, I am convinced it was open for the RAD to dismiss Mr. Singh’s appeal.
Email this Content