In a refugee claim credibility decision, the Federal Court set aside a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) ruling that had dismissed Irma Donadze’s appeal. The Court found that a material part of the RAD’s reasoning about an alleged assault on her husband was unintelligible and illogical.
Federal Court grants judicial review
In Donadze v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1108, Madam Justice Conroy granted the application for judicial review on September 1, 2026. The Court set aside the RAD’s May 3, 2024 decision and sent the matter to a differently constituted RAD panel for redetermination.
The Court made no order for costs and certified no question.
Refugee claim and decisions under review
Ms. Donadze, a citizen of Georgia, claimed refugee protection after alleging that she faced persecution from LJ, whom she described as the head of a police patrol service and a call centre. She alleged that the call centre was a criminal enterprise, that she was attacked after learning about its activities and planning to speak with her journalist brother, and that people affiliated with LJ continued looking for her after she left Georgia.
The Refugee Protection Division found that the alleged risk had no nexus to a Convention ground or political opinion. It also found that Ms. Donadze had not established that she worked at the call centre, that her attack was linked to the call centre or LJ, or that LJ tried to find her after her hospital release.
The RAD agreed that there was no Convention nexus and upheld central credibility conclusions. Before the Federal Court, Ms. Donadze did not challenge the finding that her alleged risk lacked a nexus to a Convention ground.
Court upholds RAD treatment of new evidence
The applicant also challenged the RAD’s refusal to admit new evidence: an affidavit introducing letters from her mother, father and husband about visits from people looking for her. The parties agreed that the RAD had correctly stated the legal test for admitting new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Although the evidence post-dated the RPD decision, the RAD found the letters not credible and declined to admit them. The Federal Court found that the RAD had clearly and rationally explained why it considered the information dubious, including the timing and circumstances in which the evidence arose.
The Court also rejected the procedural fairness argument that the RAD had to give Ms. Donadze an opportunity to respond to its credibility concerns before refusing to admit the letters. Justice Conroy noted that the case law did not support that position.
Material credibility finding lacked a logical link
The determinative problem arose from the RAD’s independent review of a psychotherapy report and photographs showing Ms. Donadze’s husband with an injured leg. The report referred to her statement that her husband had been threatened and physically assaulted, while her Basis of Claim narrative and RPD testimony did not mention an assault on him.
The RAD treated this omission as material to the credibility of Ms. Donadze’s fear of persecution and as support for finding that she had not shown that her own alleged attack was linked to the call centre or LJ.
The Federal Court found that the RAD did not explain the logical connection between an alleged assault on the husband and whether Ms. Donadze’s own attack was connected to the call centre or LJ. It also did not explain how the omission concerning her husband undermined the credibility of her own fear of persecution.
Justice Conroy held that this was not a peripheral error. The connection between Ms. Donadze’s attack and the call centre or LJ was central to her claim, and the Court could not determine whether the RAD would have reached the same conclusion without the flawed reasoning.
What the decision means
The decision does not direct the RAD to accept Ms. Donadze’s refugee claim or her evidence. Instead, it requires a new RAD panel to redetermine the matter.
The ruling turns on the adequacy of the RAD’s reasons in this record. It shows that where an identified discrepancy is used to undermine a central part of a refugee claim, the decision-maker’s reasons must explain how the discrepancy supports that conclusion.
Source: Federal Court Decisions