Rwanda Refugee Appeal Risk Assessment Sent Back

The Federal Court has granted judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Risk Assessment involving a Rwandan mother and daughter whose refugee claims were refused while the husband and father was recognized as a Convention refugee. The Court found the Refugee Appeal Division’s analysis of their personal risk and country evidence unreasonable and returned the matter to the RAD for redetermination.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Kanobana Et Al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1310, Court file IMM-16772-25.
• Decision date & judge: October 26, 2026, by The Honourable Madam Justice Ferron.
• Issue: The applicants challenged the RAD’s dismissal of their appeal from the refusal of their refugee claims based on alleged family-related persecution risk in Rwanda.
• Outcome: Judicial review was granted and the matter was returned to the RAD for redetermination; no question of general importance was certified.

RAD upheld refusal of mother and daughter’s claims

Mrs. Kanobana and her daughter, Kharis Kemena Iriza, are citizens of Rwanda. They sought judicial review of a July 11, 2025 RAD decision that upheld the Refugee Protection Division’s refusal of their refugee claims.

Their claims were connected to the experience of Mrs. Kanobana’s husband, identified in the decision as EG. According to the Court’s summary, EG publicly questioned government priorities on military rather than health spending at a Kigali conference in October 2023. He was asked to sign an apology letter, join the Rwandan Patriot Front and was detained for several days. He and the applicants then fled to Canada.

On February 14, 2025, the RPD accepted EG’s refugee claim under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, finding persecution by the Rwandan Patriot Front, police, government and Rwanda Investigation Bureau. On the same day, however, it refused the claims of his wife and daughter, finding they had not established the same well-founded fear of persecution.

The RAD agreed with that result. It found that Mrs. Kanobana’s subjective fear was not objectively supported by her evidence or country conditions evidence, and that there was insufficient evidence that the agents of harm had an interest in the applicants.

Court finds key evidence was not reasonably addressed

The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. Justice Ferron found the RAD had not reasonably assessed Mrs. Kanobana’s credible testimony about police contact with her father after her departure from Rwanda.

Mrs. Kanobana testified that police had called her father to ask whether he was in contact with her. Her evidence also indicated that her father had been approached sometimes after her departure but did not want to share the details because of the effect it had on her.

The Court found that this evidence contradicted the RAD’s finding that there had been no surveillance or tracking of the applicants. It should therefore have been directly addressed in the RAD’s reasons, rather than referred to only in the context of the RAD’s refusal to admit a letter from her father.

Justice Ferron also concluded that the RAD did not meaningfully address the applicants’ submissions about whether EG could be considered a high-profile political opponent. The RPD had found EG had established a risk profile based on imputed political opinions, but had not found that he held a high political profile.

RAD required to assess applicants’ circumstances

The Court said the RAD could not simply rely on the RPD’s reasoning. Although reviewing the RPD decision can sometimes help explain the RAD’s reasons, the RAD decision itself had to show transparent, justified and intelligible reasoning.

The Court found the RAD did not reconcile the country conditions evidence with the applicants’ particular circumstances. It also held that the evidence did not support characterizing country conditions as meaning that family members of low-profile political opponents are not targeted.

The applicants had attempted to submit a letter from Mrs. Kanobana’s father before the RAD. The Court found no reviewable error in the RAD’s exclusion of that letter and did not consider it in the judicial review, as it was not part of the administrative decision-maker’s substantive analysis.

The ruling does not grant refugee protection to Mrs. Kanobana or her daughter. Instead, it requires the RAD to redetermine their appeal in light of the Court’s findings on the adequacy of the risk assessment.

Source: Federal Court Decisions