Ruling notes lawyer who made grammatical errors was not writing in his first language
Canada’s Federal Court has allowed a judicial review application challenging a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision determining that an Ethiopian lawyer’s letter, presented as evidence in support of a refugee claimant’s allegations, was fraudulent because of grammatical errors.
In Adem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 440, the applicant was an Ethiopian citizen who entered Canada in July 2018. He claimed refugee protection based on two grounds:
- imputed political opinion as a part of a group that participated in protests and advocacy against the government
- his perceived sexual orientation
The applicant alleged that police looked for him after he left Ethiopia and arrested his brother in his stead. To support this allegation, the applicant submitted a letter written in English by an Ethiopian lawyer. The lawyer stated that:
- He was representing the applicant’s brother in a court proceeding in Ethiopia
- The brother “has been appearing before the court the last 2 year with long adjournment, unfair treatment and torture in prison center so he is totally feeling is injustices trail”
- The brother “should be free from unfair charge and should release from the prison” because “either of them did not do any crime”
On Aug. 30, 2024, the RPD refused the applicant’s refugee claim. The RPD found that the applicant made a “manifestly unfounded” claim with “no credible basis” under ss. 107.1 and 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 (IRPA).
According to the RPD, the applicant was not credible as a witness and submitted many fraudulent documents. In particular, the RPD considered the lawyer’s letter fraudulent due to its grammatical errors.
Even if the letter was authentic, the RPD saw minimal evidentiary weight in the lawyer’s view that the brothers were innocent of any crime, a belief based on information from the applicant’s “biased” family members.
Before the Federal Court, the applicant applied for judicial review. He challenged the RPD’s credibility analysis and its determination that his “manifestly unfounded” claim had “no credible basis.”
Given the RPD’s findings under ss. 107.1 and 107(2) of IRPA, the applicant could not appeal the refusal to the Refugee Appeal Division and had no protection from removal through a statutory stay until the outcome of his judicial review.
RPD decision set aside
The Federal Court sent back the RPD’s decision for a different member to redetermine. Given its serious concerns about whether the RPD’s credibility analysis was reasonable, the court expressed little confidence in the RPD’s original outcome.
The court ruled that the RPD’s reasons – which were not transparent, intelligible, and justified – lacked the care, attention, and clear and unmistakable terms required for making credibility findings about a refugee claimant.
Noting that the RPD considered credibility the determinative issue, the court found it necessary to remit the matter for a redetermination, given the interconnectedness of the RPD’s findings.
Regarding the lawyer’s letter, the court held that the RPD unreasonably found it fraudulent. The court did not consider it outside the realm of reasonable expectations for a lawyer not writing in his first language to make grammatical errors.
“Ultimately, the RPD is making a plausibility finding – finding it implausible that an Ethiopian lawyer writing in English could have made these grammatical mistakes and therefore the letter must be fraudulent,” wrote Justice Lobat Sadrehashemi for the court. “This is a big leap to make, based on unsupported assumptions and speculation.”
The court determined that the RPD unreasonably perceived minimal evidentiary weight in the lawyer’s letter, even if it was authentic. The court added that the RPD unreasonably evaluated the evidence.
The court explained that the RPD failed to assess other aspects of the lawyer’s letter that were possibly relevant to the applicant’s claim, and failed to acknowledge that the letter confirmed several of his allegations, specifically that:
- The authorities had taken the brother in place of the applicant when searching for the latter in February 2020
- His brother remained in prison
- The lawyer was acting on the brother’s behalf in a court case
