Background
Blessing Enyam Kenneth, a Nigerian citizen, sought refugee protection in Canada based on alleged persecution connected to her family’s political affiliations. She claimed that her father, formerly the Chief Photographer at Nigeria’s Presidential Villa during People’s Democratic Party administrations, was compelled to support the All Progressives Congress after the 2015 change in government and was later abducted and left for dead. She also alleged that she became the target of a government-aligned watchlist.
The Refugee Protection Division found that Kenneth was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. It identified substantial inconsistencies and omissions concerning whether her father had died, the identity and motives of the alleged persecutors, her family’s political involvement, and later attacks on relatives and associates. Finding no trustworthy or credible evidence supporting the claim, the RPD also made a no-credible-basis finding under subsection 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Kenneth sought judicial review, arguing that the RPD misapplied the no-credible-basis test, improperly assessed corroborating materials in isolation, and failed to account for trauma when evaluating her testimony. She also submitted a post-hearing psychological report and a new affidavit from her uncle.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Justice Go declined to admit the new psychological report and affidavit because they did not fall within the recognized exceptions permitting fresh evidence on judicial review. Kenneth sought to use them to challenge the RPD’s credibility findings on the merits, which would improperly turn judicial review into a reconsideration of the refugee claim.
The Court held that the RPD reasonably applied the no-credible-basis test and considered the corroborating evidence. The photographs, hospital letter, police report, affidavit, employment identification, and political-party membership card did not establish how the injuries or alleged attacks occurred, who was responsible, or that the claimed persecution took place. The RPD reasonably found those materials insufficient to overcome the numerous serious credibility problems in Kenneth’s account.
The Court also held that the RPD did not ignore Kenneth’s alleged trauma. It considered the applicable gender guideline and counsel’s arguments that trauma and the passage of time affected her memory, but reasonably rejected that explanation because there was no medical evidence before it showing impaired memory and the credibility concerns were too severe to be explained by alleged trauma or the passage of less than two years. No question was certified.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence created or obtained after an administrative hearing generally cannot be used on judicial review to relitigate the merits or repair deficiencies in the record.
- An RPD no-credible-basis finding may be reasonable where corroborating documents do not establish the alleged persecution and cannot overcome serious inconsistencies, omissions, and speculative testimony.
- A tribunal does not fail to consider trauma merely because it rejects trauma as an explanation; the question is whether it addressed the submission and reasonably evaluated the supporting record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the limited role of the Federal Court on judicial review: it assesses the legality and reasonableness of the administrative decision on the record before the decision-maker, rather than deciding the refugee claim anew. Evidence that might support an appeal or a different proceeding will not ordinarily be admitted simply because it bears on credibility.
The judgment also illustrates that trauma-based explanations for testimonial inconsistencies should be supported before the RPD whenever possible. Although the RPD must consider a claimant’s circumstances and applicable guidelines, it may reject an unsupported explanation where discrepancies concern central elements of the alleged persecution.