The Federal Court dismissed a RAD new evidence challenge brought by an Indian citizen whose refugee claim had been rejected on credibility grounds. In Singh Maan v. Canada, 2026 FC 1206, the Court found it was reasonably open to the Refugee Appeal Division to give no credence to affidavits from the applicant and his mother.
Refugee claim and appeal history
The applicant arrived in Canada on a student visa on December 13, 2017. Five years later, he made a refugee claim based on an alleged risk arising from his social-media advocacy for Sikh rights and the Khalistan movement in India.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim after finding that the applicant lacked credibility. The Refugee Appeal Division affirmed that finding and dismissed the appeal on February 25, 2025.
Before the RAD, the applicant sought to rely on his own affidavit and an affidavit from his mother as new evidence. The RAD found that the applicant’s affidavit provided additional details that should have been presented before the RPD. It also found the mother’s affidavit was not credible because it was almost identical to the applicant’s affidavit and appeared either to have been prepared after reading it or written substantially by the applicant.
Court considered rules for RAD new evidence
Justice Roger R. Lafrenière said the admissibility of new evidence before the RAD is governed by subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Court noted that evidence may be accepted only where it arose after the RPD decision, was not reasonably available at that time, or could not reasonably have been expected to be presented in the circumstances at the time of the rejection.
At the judicial review hearing, the applicant’s counsel conceded that the applicant’s affidavit contained nothing new apart from the statement that his mother had rekindled her relationship with him since the RPD rejected the claim and was prepared to support him.
The applicant argued that the RAD had ignored the explanation for his mother’s change of heart and had therefore wrongly refused her affidavit because of its similarity to his own. The Court disagreed.
RAD's credibility assessment was reasonably open
The Court emphasized the context of the RAD’s assessment. The RPD had given detailed reasons for finding the applicant’s explanation about his mother and brother moving from fully supporting him to cutting off communication with him was not credible, and the RAD found no error in that assessment.
Justice Lafrenière held that the RAD could examine the source of the proposed evidence and the circumstances in which it was created and submitted. On the record before the RAD, it was reasonably open to be suspicious of the claimed rekindling of the relationship between the applicant and his mother.
The Court also found no error in the RAD’s conclusion that the mother was likely not the author of an affidavit that was, for the most part, a word-for-word replication of the applicant’s affidavit. The RAD’s decision to give the affidavit no credence was described as unimpeachable.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. No serious question of general importance was certified.
The decision leaves the RAD’s dismissal of the applicant’s refugee appeal in place. The Court’s reasons address the particular affidavits and evidentiary record before the RAD.
Source: Federal Court Decisions