Background
Oluwaseun Olanrewaju Akeju and her minor son, both Nigerian citizens, sought refugee protection in Canada. Akeju alleged persecution connected to her bisexuality, threats from her former husband and his family, and proposed traditional rites involving her son. She also alleged that her son would face persecution because he has Autism Spectrum Disorder and a speech delay.
The Refugee Protection Division found the son to be a Convention refugee based on his membership in a particular social group as a child with ASD and speech delay. It rejected Akeju’s own claim, however, after finding striking similarities in wording, structure, sequencing, and events between her narrative and those of unrelated claimants. It also found that letters purportedly written by her father and a former partner contained unexplained identical language and were fabricated.
Because the fabricated evidence concerned the core of Akeju’s allegations, the RPD designated her claim manifestly unfounded under section 107.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Akeju sought judicial review, challenging only that designation as unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Justice Aylen held that the RPD reasonably concluded that common cultural backgrounds, boarding-school experiences, police practices, and spiritual-cleansing practices did not explain the narratives’ striking similarities in language, structure, event order, and outcomes. Akeju’s suggestion that someone at her shelter might have photographed or reproduced her narrative was unsupported by evidence and did not establish that the RPD’s contrary inference was speculative.
The Court also upheld the finding that the letters from Akeju’s father and former partner were fabricated and concluded that the RPD had considered her remaining documents but reasonably found them insufficient. Her argument that she faced risk as the mother of a disabled child also failed because she had not advanced that fear before the RPD or provided evidence of the required subjective fear. No question was certified.
Key Takeaways
- A refugee claim is manifestly unfounded under section 107.1 when dishonest representations, deceit, or falsehoods materially affect an important part of the claim.
- Similarities among claimants’ experiences do not alone prove fabrication, but extensive unexplained overlap in wording, structure, sequencing, and outcomes can reasonably support that finding.
- A reviewing court will not reweigh evidence where the administrative decision rests on a transparent, intelligible, and justified assessment of the record.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary distinction between ordinary similarities arising from shared cultural circumstances and detailed textual or structural overlap capable of supporting a finding that a refugee narrative was fabricated. It also confirms that a manifestly unfounded designation may stand when the false evidence is central and material to the claimant’s case.
The ruling further underscores that an applicant generally cannot fault the RPD for failing to assess a distinct theory of persecution that was not raised through testimony or other evidence before it.