Refugee claim refused with “no credible basis” or “manifestly unfounded”: no appeal, no automatic stay, and the 15-day deadline

By Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed November 10, 2026

Published November 11, 2026

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2019, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Updated November 10, 2026: sections 25, 49, 107, 107.1, 110 and 112 of the Act, section 231 of the Regulations and the Federal Court’s 2026 decision in Adem checked that day.

If the Refugee Protection Division rejected your claim and said it has “no credible basis” or is “manifestly unfounded”, you lose three things most refused claimants have. You cannot appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division. There is no automatic stay of removal while you challenge the decision in the Federal Court. And the conditional removal order against you can come into force 15 days after you are notified. The only route is an application for leave and judicial review within 15 days, usually with a motion asking the Court to stop removal while it decides.

Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, takes refugee refusals to the Federal Court and brings motions to stay removal; this guide is by Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha.

Book a consultation about your refugee claim refusal TapClick to open a short form. Our team will contact you to arrange a time.Short form, 4 quick fields Open form

What do the two findings mean?

• No credible basis (section 107(2)): the Division found “no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision”.
• Manifestly unfounded (section 107.1): the Division is of the opinion the claim “is clearly fraudulent”.

Both are more serious than an ordinary rejection. Under section 110(2)(c), no appeal may be made from a rejection that “states that the claim has no credible basis or is manifestly unfounded”.

Why this needs a lawyer

One lawyer, one file, every step:

• the application for leave and judicial review within 15 days;
• a motion to stay removal if CBSA sets a date;
• a deferral request to CBSA where it can help;
• planning around the 12-month bars on a risk assessment and a humanitarian application.

Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.

What are my options?

1. Judicial review in the Federal Court, within 15 days, challenging the rejection and the finding itself.
2. A motion to stay removal if a removal date is set before the Court decides.
3. A deferral request to CBSA, where there is a short-term reason removal should wait.
4. Later: a pre-removal risk assessment or a humanitarian application once the 12-month bars have passed, or earlier where an exception applies.

Why is there no automatic stay?

Under section 231(1) of the Regulations, removal is stayed automatically only while you seek leave against a decision “of the Refugee Appeal Division”. With no Refugee Appeal Division decision, that automatic stay does not apply. And under section 49(2)(c) of the Act, if there is no right to appeal, the removal order comes into force “15 days after the day on which notice of the rejection is provided”.

What did the Court say in Adem?

In Adem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 440, the Division found an Ethiopian claimant’s claim had no credible basis and was manifestly unfounded, largely because it decided several of his documents were fraudulent. On April 2, 2026, the Federal Court set the decision aside. Grammatical errors in a lawyer’s letter, minor typing errors and the fact that translations were done in Ethiopia did not justify findings of fraud, and the reasons did not meet the required standard.

The lesson I take from Adem is that a fraud or no-credible-basis finding has to rest on solid reasons. Where it rests on small errors in documents, it is worth challenging.

These findings at a glance

Worked example: the first two weeks

Example. A claimant in Surrey receives a negative decision with a no credible basis finding on Monday, November 2, 2026. His 15-day Federal Court deadline and the date his removal order can take effect both fall on Tuesday, November 17. He files for leave and judicial review on November 12. When CBSA calls him in a few weeks later and sets a removal date, his lawyer files a motion to stay removal with the Federal Court.

Mistakes I have seen

• I have seen claimants file a Refugee Appeal Division appeal that the Division could not hear, and lose the Federal Court deadline.
• I have seen people wait for a removal date before calling a lawyer, leaving days instead of weeks to prepare a stay motion.
• I have seen documents found fraudulent because no one explained how they were obtained.

Frequently asked questions

Is “no credible basis” the same as “not credible”?

No. Many claims are rejected on credibility. A no credible basis finding goes further: it says there was no credible or trustworthy evidence that could have supported a positive decision.

If the Federal Court sets the decision aside, what happens?

The claim goes back to the Refugee Protection Division for a new hearing before a different member.

Can I apply for a pre-removal risk assessment right away?

Usually not. Most people must wait 12 months from the final decision, unless an exemption applies to their country.

Related guides

See our guides on a stay of removal, the refugee claim process in Canada and what happens if the Federal Court denies leave.

What should I do right now?

Write down the date you received the decision and count 15 days. Keep every document you filed and any record of where it came from. Get a lawyer this week, not when CBSA calls.

Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.

Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑

Sources (official)

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 107 (current to October 19, 2026), s. 107.1, s. 110, s. 49, s. 25, s. 112 and s. 72
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 231
• Adem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 440 (April 2, 2026)

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.