The Federal Court dismissed an Ethiopian claimant’s challenge to the refusal of his ethnic Tigrayan refugee claim, finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably concluded he would not face persecution in Addis Ababa. In Nemaga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1281, the Court upheld the RAD’s assessment of country-condition evidence following a peace agreement with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.
Case concerned claimed risk from journalism and ethnicity
Mr. Nemaga, a citizen of Ethiopia, came to Canada on a student visa and later made a refugee claim. He said he feared persecution by the Ethiopian government because of journalism opposing the government, his perceived affiliation with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), and his Tigrayan ethnicity.
The Refugee Protection Division dismissed the claim after finding him not credible. It found his answers about political involvement vague and noted that he did not provide the newspaper articles he said he had written.
On appeal, Mr. Nemaga argued that the RPD had failed to assess risk arising from his residual identity as an ethnic Tigrayan. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the credibility finding and concluding that risks faced by Tigrayans had diminished after a peace agreement with the Ethiopian government.
Judicial review focused on risk in Addis Ababa
Before the Federal Court, Mr. Nemaga did not challenge the finding that his journalism-related evidence was not credible. Instead, he argued that the RAD unreasonably assessed the risk he said he faced because of his ethnicity.
Mr. Nemaga submitted that the RAD took a one-sided view of the country-condition evidence. He relied in part on a United Nations Human Rights Council report stating that ethnic Tigrayans had faced ethnic targeting, house searches, arbitrary arrest and detention throughout the conflict from November 2020 through 2023.
Court found the RAD gave a reasonable explanation
Justice Pentney reviewed the RAD decision on the reasonableness standard under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. The Court found that the RAD had considered the country-condition evidence and explained why it did not establish a risk of persecution for Mr. Nemaga in Addis Ababa.
The RAD had acknowledged that the peace was fragile, that some groups continued to face threats and violence, and that conditions in the Tigray region remained unstable. However, it distinguished those circumstances from the claimant’s proposed return to Addis Ababa.
The RAD referred to a report indicating that ethnic Tigrayans were not subject to ongoing persecution in Addis Ababa. It also noted that Mr. Nemaga’s father and sister lived there and that there was no evidence they had experienced violence.
The Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court should not re-weigh the evidence. It found that the RAD had reviewed the record and provided reasons that met the requirements of reasonableness review.
Application dismissed without a certified question
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court also found that there was no question of general importance for certification.
The decision does not revisit the unchallenged credibility finding regarding the claimant’s journalism. Its reasoning addresses whether the RAD’s separate assessment of ethnicity-based risk in Addis Ababa was reasonable on the evidence before it.
Decision information
The case is Nemaga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1281, Court file IMM-5700-25. The reasons were issued by Mr. Justice Pentney.
Source: Federal Court Decisions