Refugee Appeal Evidence Overlooked: Case Sent Back

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision involving a Chadian member of Les Transformateurs after finding that new evidence on threats against party members was not addressed. The refugee appeal evidence matter will be redetermined.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Moussa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1325, Court file IMM-18809-25.
• Decision date & judge: October 28, 2026, Madam Justice Azmudeh.
• Issue: The applicant challenged the RAD’s dismissal of his refugee protection appeal, including its treatment of post-RPD evidence about Les Transformateurs.
• Outcome: Judicial review was granted for redetermination, with no question certified.

Refugee appeal evidence the RAD did not address

The applicant, a citizen of Chad, was accepted as a member of the opposition party Les Transformateurs. However, both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division found he had not been truthful about the extent of his political activism or an alleged arrest because of his political opinion.

While his appeal was under deliberation, the applicant filed an application to add documents under Rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules. The documents included articles published in May 2025 concerning the detention of the party’s leader and members, along with escalating violence and threats against party members.

Justice Azmudeh found that the documents were before the RAD, but its decision issued about three months later did not refer to or assess them. Once the documents were submitted, the RAD had to determine whether they were admissible under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, what weight they should receive and whether they could affect its credibility concerns.

The Court concluded that the failure to consider those issues deprived the applicant of the right to be heard on a material element of his claim and made the process procedurally unfair.

Court also found the RAD reasons unreasonable

The respondent acknowledged that the added articles were not mentioned in the RAD’s reasons, but argued they would not have affected the result because the RAD had rejected the applicant’s claimed political activities and questioned some corroborating documents. The Court held that the respondent could not provide a post-decision interpretation of evidence that the RAD itself had not considered.

The Court also addressed one aspect of the RAD’s reasoning to guide the redetermination. The RAD had accepted the applicant’s membership in Les Transformateurs and that he had made at least two social-media posts critical of the government.

The RAD relied on one country document in finding that party membership alone did not establish a serious possibility of persecution. Justice Azmudeh noted that other country evidence in the record reported mass arrests and indicated that authorities focused on whether people were members of Les Transformateurs.

Although the RAD could assign different weight to the evidence, it could not ignore contradictory evidence that was properly before it. The Court found the RAD’s reasons did not show meaningful engagement with that contrary evidence and were unintelligible, unjustified and opaque.

What the ruling means

The judgment does not grant refugee protection. It sets aside the negative refugee appeal result through judicial review and requires redetermination.

The decision turns on the record in this case, particularly the RAD’s failure to address the applicant’s added evidence and contradictory country-condition material. The Court did not certify a question.

Source: Federal Court Decisions