The Federal Court dismissed Olanrewaju Akeju’s application for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division finding that her refugee claim was a manifestly unfounded claim. Justice Aylen found the RPD reasonably concluded that central evidence in the applicant’s claim had been fabricated.
Federal Court decision and refugee claim context
In Akeju v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1115, released September 1, 2026, the Federal Court considered a challenge to a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision. The matter was heard by the Honourable Madam Justice Aylen in Court file IMM-5042-25.
The applicant and her minor son, both citizens of Nigeria, sought refugee protection. The applicant alleged risks connected to her bisexuality, including fear of persecution by her ex-husband, his family, Nigerian society and authorities. She also alleged that her ex-husband and his family wanted to perform traditional rites against her son, and that she feared physical violence from her ex-husband.
The RPD accepted the son as a Convention refugee based on his membership in a particular social group as a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and speech delay. However, it found that the applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
RPD found central evidence was fabricated
The RPD identified striking similarities between the applicant’s narrative and narratives submitted by unrelated claimants. These similarities included the flow, themes, sequencing, wording and passages concerning how the applicant was introduced to homosexuality, a police call, and threats following her refusal to allow her son to participate in traditional rites.
The RPD found that the applicant could not explain those similarities. It also concluded that letters said to be from her father and a former partner were fabricated. Because this evidence was central to the applicant’s refugee claim, the RPD found the claim manifestly unfounded.
Applicant challenged the finding of fraud
The sole issue before the Court was whether the RPD’s manifestly unfounded finding was unreasonable. The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review.
The applicant did not dispute that the RPD’s credibility concerns went to the core of her claim. She argued instead that similarities between unrelated refugee narratives do not necessarily establish fabrication. She submitted that shared cultural backgrounds, boarding-school experiences, police interactions and spiritual cleansing practices could account for common language and events.
She also argued that the RPD had placed excessive emphasis on linguistic similarities, made a speculative finding about whether her narrative could have been copied without her knowledge, and improperly treated similar letters as fabricated. The applicant further submitted that the RPD did not properly assess a possible risk to her as the mother of a child with a disability.
Court found the RPD’s analysis was reasonable
Justice Aylen agreed with the respondent that the applicant’s submissions largely sought to have the Court reweigh the evidence. The Court found the RPD had considered the claimants’ common cultural backgrounds and similar circumstances, but reasonably determined that these factors did not explain the extent of the similarities in the wording and structure of their accounts.
The Court also found no error in the RPD’s treatment of the objective country evidence. While the RPD recognized the common cultural context, it reasonably concluded that this context did not explain accounts describing experiences in the same order, with the same outcomes and in strikingly similar language.
On the applicant’s explanation that her written narrative may have been accessed at a shelter, the Court held it was open to the RPD to find that she had not explained the similarities. The Court described the possibility that someone photographed, scanned or reproduced the narrative without her knowledge as speculative because there was no evidence in the record to support it.
The Court further found the RPD reasonably concluded that the letters from the applicant’s father and former partner were fabricated, noting that they contained multiple identical phrases without an explanation. It also held that the RPD had considered the remaining documents but reasonably found them insufficient to establish the claim.
Regarding the asserted risk to the applicant as the mother of a child with a disability, the Court found that this risk had not been advanced before the RPD. The evidence did not establish that the applicant had a subjective fear of persecution on that basis.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review after finding that the applicant had not shown the RPD’s decision was unreasonable. The parties proposed no question for certification, and the Court agreed that none arose.
The decision concerns the reasonableness of the RPD’s findings on the evidence in this claim. It does not alter the separate RPD determination that the applicant’s son was a Convention refugee.
Source: Federal Court Decisions