The Federal Court dismissed a Bangladeshi refugee claimant’s application for judicial review after finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably concluded that changed political conditions meant he had not established a forward-facing risk. In Hussain v. Canada, 2026 FC 1218, decided October 2, 2026, Madam Justice Go also declined to let the Minister raise a new argument about the timeliness of the court application for the first time in a further memorandum of argument.
RAD found no forward-looking risk after political change
The applicant arrived in Canada on a study permit in November 2022 and made a refugee claim on May 31, 2023. He alleged that local Awami League cadres had persecuted him by demanding that he join the party or give them money.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim in October 2024. Although it accepted a nexus to political opinion based on the allegations, it found the claim had not been established with credible or trustworthy evidence.
While the appeal was pending at the Refugee Appeal Division, the Awami League government fell from power. The RAD notified the applicant that it intended to consider an updated National Documentation Package addressing those developments in its assessment of future risk.
In its April 22, 2025 decision, the RAD dismissed the appeal because the applicant had not established a forward-facing risk. That finding was determinative of the appeal.
Court declined late service-date argument
The Minister argued in a further memorandum of argument that the judicial review application was not properly before the Court. The Minister submitted that the RAD decision had been served on the applicant’s counsel through the Immigration and Refugee Board’s My Case Portal on April 24, 2025, while the application was filed on May 15, 2025 without a request for an extension of time.
Justice Go declined to permit the new issue. The Court noted that the relevant service information was already in the applicant’s record when the Minister filed the memorandum of argument at the leave stage.
Allowing the issue at the later stage would prejudice the applicant, the Court found. By then, deadlines for the applicant to file further affidavit evidence and a further memorandum had passed, leaving no opportunity to provide updated evidence or reply submissions that could address the presumed date of service.
The Court distinguished cases in which the Minister had raised the date-of-service issue at the leave stage, giving applicants an opportunity to respond. Justice Go urged the Minister to raise such issues at the earliest opportunity and noted that applicants would be ill-advised to ignore discrepancies between My Case Portal service dates and dates on which they say they received a decision.
Court found the RAD’s risk analysis reasonable
The parties agreed that reasonableness was the presumptive standard of review. The Court assessed whether the RAD decision had the required justification, transparency and intelligibility, with the applicant bearing the burden of showing it was unreasonable.
The applicant argued that the RAD focused too narrowly on the Awami League’s loss of power and senior leaders, rather than the continuing ability and motivation of local cadres to harm him. The Court rejected that submission.
Justice Go found that the applicant’s refugee claim before the RPD and RAD had connected the local cadres’ power to their association with the Awami League, including connections to people in power and corrupt police. It was therefore not unreasonable for the RAD to consider the fall of the Awami League when assessing future risk.
The Court also found the applicant’s position inconsistent with his submissions to the RAD. In those submissions, he had argued that risk remained because the Awami League might return to power, rather than because local cadres independently continued to pose a risk.
The RAD had considered National Documentation Package evidence stating that low-level Awami League supporters were unlikely to remain of ongoing interest to authorities. It also noted that the Bangladesh Chhatra League, described in the evidence as the Awami League student wing, had been declared a terrorist organization and banned. The Court found that the RAD had not ignored the evidence concerning the local cadres and was entitled to conclude that it did not establish a future risk.
Finally, the Court held that the RAD’s conclusion was based on changed country conditions, not an absence of evidence of past persecution. Given the RAD’s finding that the Awami League’s downfall was not temporary or brief, it was reasonable to find no objective basis for the applicant’s fear despite the alleged past incidents.
Application dismissed with no certified question
Justice Go dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court did not certify a question for appeal.
Source: Federal Court Decisions