The Federal Court dismissed a Chad citizen’s application for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting his refugee claim. In the Refugee Claim Credibility case, Justice Negar Azmudeh found the RPD’s reasoning on omissions concerning the claimant’s alleged detention, hiding and political activities in Canada was reasonable.
Case Summary
- Case & citation: Youssouf v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1313, Court file IMM-11257-25.
- Decision date & judge: October 27, 2026, by Madam Justice Azmudeh.
- Issue: The claimant challenged the RPD’s rejection of his refugee claim based on alleged political persecution, Goran ethnicity and sur place political activities in Canada.
- Outcome: The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no question was certified.
RPD found central allegations were not credible
The applicant claimed that Chadian authorities perceived him as assisting a Goran rebel group, resulting in his arrest, detention and mistreatment in or around June 2023. He also alleged that he hid at his cousin’s residence after his release until he left Chad in or around September 2023.
The RPD focused on omissions in the applicant’s immigration forms. In Schedule A, completed in Canada with the assistance of counsel, he answered “No” when asked whether he had ever been arrested, detained or imprisoned. The RPD did not accept his explanation that the form contained an error and found the alleged detention was not credible.
The RPD also considered the omission of the cousin’s address from Schedule A. The Court noted that the RPD’s concerns arose not only from the omission itself, but from the applicant’s evolving explanations for it. The RPD found the allegation that he had been forced into hiding was not credible.
Court applied reasonableness review
Justice Azmudeh said the only issue was whether the RPD decision was reasonable. Under the reasonableness standard, the Court assessed whether the decision was transparent, intelligible and justified in relation to the facts and law.
The Court found that the RPD gave a clear chain of reasoning for treating the omissions as material. The applicant’s submission that disproportionate weight had been placed on the Schedule A omission was, in the Court’s view, an invitation to reweigh evidence, which is not the Court’s role on judicial review.
The Court also found that the RPD reasonably considered the applicant’s response that he was a “poor businessman” when he was asked open-ended questions about measures he took to stay safe before leaving Chad. The RPD was entitled to conclude that a letter from the cousin did not overcome the credibility concerns.
Ethnicity and Canadian activities did not establish risk
The Court noted that the documentary evidence established, and the applicant agreed, that Goran ethnicity alone was insufficient to establish a risk of persecution in Chad. The RPD accepted that Gorans with a heightened risk profile could face a serious possibility of persecution, but found the applicant had not established additional risk factors after rejecting his detention and hiding allegations.
The applicant also advanced a sur place claim based on his alleged membership and activities with the College of Chadian Activist Personnel in Canada. A sur place claim concerns a claimed fear of persecution arising from events after a person has left their country of origin.
The RPD asked the applicant about evidence of his activities, whether his family in Chad had faced harassment since those activities began, and whether he had been contacted or threatened after arriving in Canada. It concluded that his activities in Canada had likely not come to the attention of Chadian authorities. The Court found that this inquiry and reasoning were responsive to the evidence.
What the judgment means
This judgment leaves the RPD’s refusal in place. It does not grant refugee protection or direct a new hearing.
The decision is based on the Court’s assessment of the particular record, including the claimant’s forms, hearing evidence and supporting material. The Court concluded that the RPD’s credibility findings and its assessment of the sur place claim met the reasonableness standard.
Source: Federal Court Decisions