In Refugee Claim Credibility, the Federal Court dismissed Ms. Oumar Ali Haoua’s application for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying her protection claim and finding it had no credible basis. Justice Gleeson released the decision on October 1, 2026.
RPD refused claim based on credibility concerns
Haoua, a citizen of Chad, claimed protection in Canada after reporting that she fled following her refusal to enter a levirate marriage with her late husband’s brother. She alleged that her brother-in-law assaulted her and threatened to kill her after she refused the marriage.
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused the claim on April 2, 2025. It found credibility was determinative and concluded under subsection 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that there was no credible basis for the claim.
On judicial review, Haoua acknowledged inconsistencies in her evidence but argued that the RPD had been overzealous in its assessment and had unreasonably found her claim lacked a credible basis. The Minister maintained that the RPD had reasonably identified unexplained inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions.
Court found core credibility findings were reasonable
The Court reviewed the RPD decision on the reasonableness standard. Justice Gleeson stated that Haoua had not shown that the RPD’s credibility findings were unreasonable; her submissions generally proposed alternative conclusions that the RPD could have reached.
The Court found that the RPD had considered documentary evidence that Haoua was 16 when she married in 2001. However, the RPD had also identified inconsistencies in the evidence about the year of her marriage and the age difference between her and her husband. The RPD explained why those discrepancies mattered and why her responses did not resolve its concerns.
The Court also upheld the RPD’s treatment of conflicting evidence concerning the disappearance or death of Haoua’s husband. The RPD noted differing accounts that he had either been kidnapped by an armed rebel group or voluntarily joined an armed group and died in combat. It also considered the lack of a death certificate in circumstances where other official documents had been produced.
Justice Gleeson agreed that some discrepancies cited by the RPD, including matters relating to employment history, were peripheral. But any possible error on those matters did not undermine the RPD’s findings on inconsistencies affecting the core elements of the claim.
No credible basis finding met the high threshold
The Court noted that the threshold for a no credible basis finding under subsection 107(2) is high. A claim cannot receive that finding if there is credible or trustworthy evidence that could support a positive determination, even where the claimant has not established the claim on a balance of probabilities.
In Haoua’s case, the Court recognized that some evidence in the record was credible and trustworthy. The RPD had not questioned the marriage certificate or birth certificates, and it had not found declarations from Haoua’s aunt and neighbour to be non-credible.
However, Justice Gleeson held that this evidence could not have supported a favourable determination because there was no credible and trustworthy evidence on the claim’s core elements: that Haoua’s husband was dead or missing, and that she faced a resulting risk of a levirate marriage. The RPD’s no credible basis finding was therefore reasonable.
Judicial review dismissed without certified question
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for certification, and the Court found that none arose.
The decision turns on the particular evidentiary record and the RPD’s assessment of credibility. It confirms that, on judicial review, showing that another interpretation of the evidence was available does not by itself establish that an RPD decision was unreasonable.
Source: Federal Court Decisions