The Federal Court has dismissed a Kenyan citizen’s challenge to a Refugee Appeal Division decision rejecting her protection claim. In Macharia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1270, the Court upheld the RAD’s refugee claim credibility findings, its treatment of proposed new evidence and its decision not to hold an oral hearing.
Case background and RAD decision
The applicant claimed refugee protection in Canada on the basis that she feared violence from her in-laws and other relatives over a matrimonial-property dispute. She said she fled her Kenyan village for Nairobi before leaving Kenya, and that she would not be safe anywhere in Kenya.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim on March 4, 2025, citing major credibility concerns. The applicant appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division, which dismissed the appeal on May 13, 2025.
Before the RAD, the applicant submitted her own affidavit, an affidavit from her daughter, a letter from Kenya’s Registrar of Births and Deaths and a letter from a village chief. The RAD admitted only the Registrar’s Letter. It found the other proposed evidence repeated information already before the RPD or lacked an adequate explanation for not having been presented earlier.
Applicant challenged evidence and hearing process
The application for judicial review raised procedural fairness and reasonableness issues. The applicant argued that the RAD should have given her notice and an opportunity to respond before drawing concerns about the authenticity of a medical note and police abstract that she had submitted to the RPD.
Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino found no procedural unfairness. The Court held that the documents were already in the record and had been supplied by the applicant. The RAD was entitled to assess their authenticity and credibility when considering the evidence and was not required to provide separate notice in those circumstances.
The Court also reviewed the RAD’s substantive findings, including its decisions on the admissibility of new evidence and whether to hold an oral hearing, on the reasonableness standard.
Court finds RAD reasonably assessed new evidence
Under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a person appealing to the RAD may present evidence that arose after the refugee claim was rejected, was not reasonably available at that time, or could not reasonably have been expected to have been presented then.
The Court found that the RAD reasonably applied those requirements. It accepted the Registrar’s Letter because the applicant could not have known the RPD would reject the death certificate until the RPD decision was issued.
However, the Court upheld the RAD’s refusal to admit the daughter’s affidavit. While it described alleged threats following the RPD decision, the RAD found the timing suspiciously convenient given that the applicant’s in-laws had taken virtually no action over the property dispute for about 12 years. The Court also found it reasonable for the RAD to view the applicant’s own affidavit as affected by the same concerns because it relied entirely on information said to have come from her daughter.
The chief’s letter was reasonably excluded, the Court held, because it was duplicative and did not materially support the applicant’s assertions about ongoing social hostility or lack of state protection. Since most of the proposed evidence was not admitted and the Registrar’s Letter did not meet the applicable requirements for an oral hearing, the RAD reasonably declined to hold one.
Credibility findings and judicial review dismissed
The Court found the RAD’s broader credibility assessment reasonable. The RAD had relied on inconsistencies concerning the date of the applicant’s husband’s death, the explanation for obtaining the property title deed, the applicant’s nine-year delay in leaving Kenya after the alleged threats began, and concerns about documentary evidence.
Justice D’Agostino held that the applicant had not challenged before the RAD the RPD’s finding that her in-laws had not pursued legal proceedings or contested succession to the property for approximately 12 years. The Court said she could not raise that issue for the first time on judicial review.
The Court also upheld the RAD’s conclusion that the Registrar’s Letter did not resolve the key discrepancy concerning the death certificate’s registration date. It found the RAD could reasonably assess the evidence concerning the property acquisition, the departure delay and the medical note and police abstract as part of its credibility analysis.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. No question of general importance was certified.
What the decision means
This decision concerns the reasonableness of the RAD’s assessment in this particular record. It confirms that a RAD appeal is ordinarily paper-based and that accepting some new evidence does not, by itself, require an oral hearing.
For refugee claim practice, the decision also illustrates the importance of addressing adverse RPD findings during the RAD appeal and explaining why proposed new evidence meets the statutory conditions for admission. The Court did not order a new RAD review.
Source: Federal Court Decisions