Federal Court: Refugee Claimants Expected to Mitigate Risk on Social Media
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1760
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-24772-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Wale Idowu Komolafe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1760
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, claimed refugee protection fearing his uncles after refusing a traditional chief role. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied his claim, finding he could live safely in another part of Nigeria, known as an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that claimants must provide concrete evidence that an IFA is unreasonable and are expected to take reasonable steps to protect themselves, including using privacy settings on social media.
Key Quote from the Court
In other words, despite the Applicant asserting his right to access social media, it is not a reviewable error for the RAD to expect a refugee claimant to be careful and vigilant, or exercise caution in their use of social media. This includes being discreet in social media and making use of privacy settings. It does not amount to improperly asking them to go into hiding (at para 25).
Expert Takeaways
-
The Burden of Proof for IFA is High This case reaffirms that the onus is on the refugee claimant to provide 'actual and concrete' evidence that relocating within their home country would be unreasonable. Speculation or general fears are not enough to overcome the IFA test.
-
Social Media Caution is a Reasonable Expectation The Court confirmed that expecting a claimant to be discreet on social media (e.g., using privacy settings) is not the same as forcing them into hiding. Claimants must take reasonable steps to mitigate their own risk, and this includes their online presence.
-
Persecutors' Motivation Must Be Established The decision highlights that a past threat in one location does not automatically mean persecutors have the motivation or means to track a claimant to an IFA. A long period without contact, as seen in this case, can significantly weaken the argument for a continued risk.
-
Submit Comprehensive Medical Evidence If mental health is a factor in arguing an IFA is unreasonable, the evidence must be specific. The psychological report must clearly explain how relocating and the conditions in the IFA would prevent access to care or exacerbate the condition; a simple diagnosis is insufficient.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Refused again after reconsideration?
The Federal Court can still review your case — let's talk about your options.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Refugee Claim / Asylum rulings
Federal Court Slams Refugee Board's 'Unreasonable' Credibility Findings
Federal Court: IRCC's Delays Cannot Justify Further Delays in Refugee PR Case
Federal Court: Failure to Prove Identity is Fatal to a Refugee Claim
Federal Court: Inconsistent Testimony Fatal to Refugee Credibility
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)