Background
Racheal Oluwatobiloba Adekoya and her three minor daughters, all Nigerian citizens, sought to stay their removal to Port Harcourt, scheduled for July 15, 2026. Their refugee claims alleged threats that the twin daughters would be forced to participate in a twin ritual and that all three daughters would be subjected to female genital mutilation. The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claims, finding credibility problems and no forward-looking risk.
The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed the family’s appeal after finding Port Harcourt was a viable internal flight alternative because their relatives lacked the means to locate them there and the daughters would not face a risk of female genital mutilation. The RAD decision was placed in counsel’s electronic portal on December 19, 2025, while the principal applicant said she became aware of it on December 30, 2025. The family filed an application for leave and judicial review on January 12, 2026.
The Minister argued that the judicial-review application was filed outside the 15-day statutory deadline and therefore did not trigger the automatic stay under section 231 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The Court excluded late evidence consisting partly of an unsworn letter from counsel, finding that admitting the reply evidence without leave would be unfair.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted the motion and stayed the family’s removal until further order. It did not finally decide whether the judicial-review application was timely or whether the statutory stay applied. Instead, it found a serious issue concerning when the applicants were notified of or became aware of the RAD decision, a factual question that determines whether they received the statutory stay.
The applicants had provided affidavit evidence that they became aware of the decision on December 30, 2025. By contrast, the Minister relied on a statement of service saying the decision was provided through the electronic portal on December 19, but supplied no probative electronic routing information establishing where and when it was sent for purposes of notifying counsel.
The Court held that depriving the applicants of an applicable statutory stay would cause irreparable harm by denying them a statutory right. Although the public interest favoured timely and efficient immigration enforcement, it also favoured ensuring that individuals are not deprived of statutory rights without proper reason. The balance of convenience therefore supported a stay, making relief just and equitable in the circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- The date when an immigration applicant was notified of or became aware of a decision is a factual question that must be established by evidence.
- Evidence that a decision was placed in an electronic portal may be insufficient to establish notification when it lacks probative routing or delivery information.
- The Court stayed removal because the possible loss of an applicable statutory stay constituted irreparable harm, while leaving the statutory-stay issue for later determination.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of reliable evidence showing when an electronically delivered immigration decision actually notified an applicant or counsel. That date can determine whether a judicial-review application was timely and whether an automatic removal stay arose.
It also illustrates that interim relief may preserve the status quo where removing applicants could defeat a disputed statutory protection before the Court determines whether that protection applies.