Federal Court: RAD Must Hold Hearing When Credibility is Key
- Citation
- 2026 FC 911
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-3204-25
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Kararha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 911
The Applicant, a refugee claimant from India, had his claim denied by the RPD due to credibility issues. He appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), arguing his previous lawyer provided incompetent counsel and presented a new basis of risk, requesting an oral hearing to address the new credibility concerns.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to deny an oral hearing was unreasonable. The Court held that since the RAD made credibility the central issue and used new evidence to make adverse findings, it was a breach of procedural fairness not to allow the Applicant to respond in an oral hearing.
Key Quote from the Court
The RAD's single paragraph refusing to hold a hearing is contradicted by the rest of the Decision. Accordingly, the RAD's reasoning is neither transparent nor justified, making it unreasonable. (at para 18)
Expert Takeaways
-
Oral Hearings are Crucial for Credibility When new evidence raises serious credibility issues that are central to a refugee appeal, the RAD cannot make negative findings without generally holding an oral hearing. Refusing to do so may be deemed unreasonable by the Federal Court.
-
Discretion Must Be Exercised Reasonably While the RAD has discretion on whether to hold a hearing, that discretion is not absolute. Its decision must be justified, transparent, and consistent with the evidence and its own analysis. A contradictory, one-paragraph refusal is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
-
Procedural Fairness is Paramount This case underscores a core principle of administrative law
-
Incompetent Counsel Claims Require a Hearing Allegations of incompetent counsel inherently create a credibility contest between the applicant and their former representative. It is a procedural error for the RAD to resolve this contest on paper alone and then use that finding to dismiss the appeal.
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)