The Federal Court dismissed Basil Onyeje’s judicial review application after finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably refused to admit his affidavit as RAD new evidence. The affidavit did not meet the statutory requirements for new evidence, and the RAD’s adverse credibility findings independently supported its dismissal of his refugee appeal.
Case background and RAD decision
In Onyeje v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1292, Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino reviewed a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision concerning a Nigerian citizen’s refugee protection claim. The applicant alleged that he feared persecution by state actors in Nigeria because of his alleged bisexuality.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim on October 15, 2024, citing major credibility concerns. The applicant appealed, challenging those findings and filing an affidavit before the RAD.
The RAD refused to admit the affidavit as new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It found that the affidavit sought to clarify inconsistencies identified by the Refugee Protection Division or repeat earlier arguments, rather than provide qualifying new evidence. The RAD considered the affidavit’s arguments as part of the applicant’s submissions, but not as evidence.
The RAD also made adverse credibility findings based on fraudulent documents, a lack of corroborative evidence, vague testimony and significant discrepancies in the evidence. It dismissed the appeal on April 25, 2025.
Applicant challenged affidavit refusal and oral hearing
The judicial review raised two issues: whether the RAD breached procedural fairness by refusing an oral hearing and whether its decision was reasonable.
The applicant argued that the affidavit should have been admitted and that the requirements for a RAD oral hearing had been met. He also argued that the RAD gave inadequate reasons for refusing the affidavit and erred by treating it as submissions.
The Court stated that procedural fairness questions are reviewed on a standard akin to correctness, while the RAD’s substantive findings, including its determination on new evidence and whether to hold a hearing, are reviewed for reasonableness.
Court finds affidavit did not qualify as new evidence
Justice D’Agostino found that the RAD reasonably concluded the affidavit did not meet subsection 110(4). The Court said the affidavit did not contain information that arose after the Refugee Protection Division decision, was not reasonably available earlier, or could not reasonably have been expected to be presented at that stage.
The Court rejected the position that evidence is new simply because it was not previously filed before the Refugee Protection Division. It stated that accepting that interpretation would defeat the purpose of the statutory limits on new evidence before the RAD.
The Court also held that the RAD’s reasons, read as a whole, adequately explained why the affidavit failed the statutory requirements, even though the analysis could have been expressed more explicitly. Because those requirements were not met, the RAD was not required to separately consider the Raza and Singh factors.
The judgment further found that the applicant, rather than the RAD, bore the onus of establishing that proposed evidence satisfied subsection 110(4).
No procedural fairness breach over oral hearing
The Court found no procedural fairness breach in the RAD’s refusal to hold an oral hearing. Under the statutory framework discussed in the decision, the RAD generally proceeds without a hearing, subject to specified exceptions.
Justice D’Agostino held that, because the affidavit was reasonably rejected as inadmissible new evidence, an oral hearing was neither required nor possible. The refusal flowed from the affidavit’s failure to meet the statutory requirements, not from the RAD’s decision to consider its contents as submissions.
The Court also found no legal error in the RAD’s treatment of the inadmissible affidavit as submissions rather than evidence.
Unchallenged credibility findings supported dismissal
The Court noted that the applicant had not challenged the RAD’s adverse credibility findings on judicial review. The RAD had indicated it would reach the same credibility conclusions regardless of how it treated the affidavit.
Justice D’Agostino concluded that those unchallenged findings independently supported the RAD decision and provided a sufficient basis to dismiss the judicial review application.
The application was dismissed, and the Court stated that no question for certification arose.
What the decision means
This decision concerns the particular record before the Court and does not create a general policy change. It illustrates the statutory limits on filing new evidence at the RAD and the importance of directly challenging findings that independently support a refugee appeal decision.
For refugee claimants and representatives, the judgment underscores that an affidavit prepared after an adverse Refugee Protection Division decision may not qualify as new evidence merely because it offers clarification, corroboration or a response to weaknesses identified in the earlier decision.
Decision information
Case: Onyeje v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1292. Court file: IMM-10732-25. Judge: The Honourable Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino. The decision under review was the RAD’s April 25, 2025 dismissal of the applicant’s refugee appeal.
Source: Federal Court Decisions