A Federal Court judge has granted a Nigerian woman an urgent stay of deportation, accepting her argument that she fears being forced into becoming the mistress of a powerful businessman in her homeland who has used state machinery, including the courts, to pressure her.
Judge cites credible fear of businessman's influence
Justice Negar Azmudeh issued the stay on June 16, 2026, for Amina E-Osmund Ekpo, 47, who was scheduled to report for removal from Canada earlier this week. The stay allows Ekpo to await a decision on whether another judge will review an immigration officer's refusal to grant her a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), her last chance to remain in Canada.
According to the decision, Ekpo alleged she feared a well-connected businessman who wanted her to become his mistress. "The businessman was well-connected and was using the state machinery, including the courts, to issue baseless summons or evict her from her apartment to ultimately force her into submissions," Azmudeh wrote.
Immigration minister's lawyers argued against stay
Lawyers for Immigration Minister Lena Diab recommended the court reject Ekpo's "unnecessarily long" argument, the judge noted. However, Azmudeh stated: "Given the high stakes of an urgent stay motion, it is not in the interest of justice for this court to give more weight to form over substance."
Ekpo was ineligible to plead her refugee case before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada but could apply for a PRRA, the judge explained. The judge found a serious issue in the case, noting that the immigration officer accepted Ekpo's allegations as credible but rejected the claim due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Presumption of truthfulness for refugee claimants
Azmudeh agreed with Diab's lawyers that the onus is always on a refugee claimant to prove their claim. However, she cited a Federal Court of Appeal decision stating that when a claimant swears certain facts are true, it creates a presumption they are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.
The judge also referenced the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, which notes there is no general requirement for a claimant to provide corroborating documents. "This is because a refugee may have been forced to flee their home on little or no notice, taking little or nothing with them, and such circumstances of flight render it impossible or unreasonable to expect them to provide supporting documentary evidence," Azmudeh said.
Lack of corroboration cannot alone undermine credibility
The judge found that requiring corroboration without explaining why Ekpo's evidence lacked credibility would effectively reverse the presumption that she was telling the truth. "Alone, the absence of corroborating evidence cannot ground an adverse credibility finding," Azmudeh wrote. "An adverse finding against credibility must first find that independent reasons exist to doubt an applicant's claim, and the board must then consider absence of corroboration as a reason to doubt a claim's credibility."
