The Federal Court dismissed a Cameroonian claimant’s application for judicial review after finding the Refugee Appeal Division’s credibility assessment was reasonable. The refugee claim credibility dispute concerned whether the claimant had established that he was gay and therefore faced a risk of persecution in Cameroon.
Case and decision under review
In Kameni Kambi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1283, Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo dismissed the application for judicial review on October 21, 2026. The Federal Court reviewed a March 10, 2025 decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which had upheld the Refugee Protection Division’s refusal of the claimant’s refugee claim.
The claimant, a citizen of Cameroon, arrived in Canada on November 2, 2023 and made a refugee claim. He said he feared persecution from his family and the general population in Cameroon because he was a gay man.
The Refugee Protection Division found that he had not established his sexual orientation or his resulting risk. It cited vague and superficial testimony, as well as inconsistencies and concerns involving the documentary evidence. The RAD upheld that conclusion after conducting its own analysis.
RAD assessed testimony and proposed new evidence
Before the RAD, the claimant argued that the Refugee Protection Division had not properly considered cultural and psychological factors that could affect how he described becoming aware of his sexual orientation. He also submitted documents including material connected to a LGBTQ+ dating application, communications with a new boyfriend, photographs, material concerning his sister’s death, and communications with a doctor in Cameroon.
The RAD found the new evidence inadmissible under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It found that four of the documents contained photographs and statements that were not acceptable under the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Guideline 9 on sexual orientation, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression. The guideline says decision-makers should not expect a person to establish sexual orientation through sexually explicit visual material.
The RAD also noted that some of the dating-application material arose after the Refugee Protection Division refused the claim and found it too fortuitous in the absence of corroborating evidence. It found that the doctor-related documents did not concern facts that arose after the Refugee Protection Division decision.
On the merits, the RAD concluded that the claimant’s evidence about his awareness of his sexual orientation remained too vague and superficial. It found that the other evidence, including participation in LGBTQ+ activities in Canada, did not overcome the credibility concerns.
Federal Court applied reasonableness review
The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review. It held that the claimant had not shown that the RAD decision lacked justification, transparency or intelligibility.
The claimant also filed material that had not been before the RAD, including a psychologist’s report dated May 29, 2026. He argued that the report explained memory problems during the earlier refugee proceedings. The Court found that this new evidence did not fall within the recognized exceptions for evidence outside the administrative record and did not consider it.
The Court rejected the argument that the RAD had required the claimant to demonstrate an emotional upheaval to establish his sexual orientation. It found that the RAD had instead sought less vague and more detailed explanations of his experience. The Court also found that the RAD had considered Guideline 9 and had not ignored or minimized the claimant’s self-identification.
Justice Ngo concluded that the claimant’s arguments largely challenged the weight the RAD gave to the evidence. Accepting those arguments would require the Court to reassess the same evidence and reach a different conclusion, which was not the Court’s role on judicial review.
Outcome and practice significance
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court also confirmed that no question would be certified.
The decision does not create a new general rule for refugee claims. In this case, the Court found the RAD’s treatment of the claimant’s testimony, supporting documents and proposed new evidence was reasonable on the record before it. It also illustrates that judicial review is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence assessed by the RAD.
Source: Federal Court Decisions