Docket: IMM-6637-25
Citation: 2026 FC 776
Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NIMCO ABDIRASHID SULEIMAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an officer with the Immigration Section of the High Commission of Canada at Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (the “Officer”
) dated November 11, 2024, denying her application for permanent residence made from outside Canada as a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class or a member of the Country of Asylum class pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”
) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”
) (the “Decision”
).
[2] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable and that the Officer failed to evaluate the Applicant’s eligibility as a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class and a member of the Country of Asylum Class.
[3] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable and that this Court’s intervention is not warranted.
[4] For the reasons that follow, this application is granted.
II. Background
[5] The Applicant is a citizen of Somalia. She is currently twenty-five years old, single, poor and uneducated.
[6] The Applicant claims that in July 2020, Al-Shabaab militants came to her family home located on the outskirts of Mogadishu on two occasions and demanded that she marry one of their fighters. On the first occasion, the Applicant states that her father managed to turn them away by indicating he would need to speak with the Applicant. Concerned that the militants would take the Applicant by force, with her family’s assistance, the Applicant fled the family home to stay with a relative in a different neighbourhood in Mogadishu. On the second occasion, having discovered that the Applicant fled, the Applicant’s family was threatened, which led them to flee to an unknown location.
[7] The Applicant claimed that she received a phone call in October 2020 from a member of Al-Shabaab who threatened to kill her.
[8] Fearing for her life, the Applicant left Somalia and traveled to Uganda via Kenya. The Applicant’s request for asylum in Uganda was accepted on June 7, 2021, and she was granted refugee status under the United Nations High Commission of Refugees.
[9] The Applicant asserts that as a young, uneducated, female refugee in Uganda she is unable to find work and relies on support from family members and others. The Applicant has been separated from her parents and siblings since July 2020. A relative in Canada, aware of the Applicant’s situation, formed a group of five people to sponsor the Applicant’s Canadian refugee application. Sponsorship has been approved; however, the Applicant’s resettlement portion of the application was refused.
[10] In a letter dated November 11, 2024, the Officer set out the reasons for the refusal of the application as follows:
After carefully assessing all factors relative to your application, I am not satisfied that you are a member of any of the classes prescribed.
I am not satisfied that you have been truthful or forthcoming with the information you provided in support of this application. At interview, your obligation to be truthful and honest was made clear to you. Concerns over the credibility of the information you were providing was made known to you during the interview and you were given an opportunity to respond. Your response, however, did not allay the concerns.
Having removed all the information with which there are credibility concerns from the assessment of your application, there remains insufficient evidence remaining with which to be satisfied that you are not inadmissible to Canada and that you meet the requirements of the Act as stated above.
[11] The Global Case Management System (“GCMS”
) notes, which form part of the reasons for Decision, state in part:
… I acknowledge that PA provided proof of refugee status granted by the Gov of Uganda and this status was considered as part of this decision.
… Following the interview, I am not satisfied that the applicant meets the definition to meet the criteria for either convention refugee class or country of asylum class.
Based on the interview and review of the file, I do not find the applicant was credible. The reasons for this decision are as follows: • The applicant’s narrative in the interview had significant discrepancies in the timeline. The applicant was not able to present a cohesive narrative. … I am not satisfied with the credibility of the applicant and so am not able ascertain eligibility. Their responses did not allay my concerns that they do not meet the definitions of either the convention refugee or country of asylum class.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[12] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 25, 86).
[13] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 85).
[14] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
[15] The issues in this application are:
-
a)Was the Officer’s credibility determination reasonable?
-
b)Was the Officer’s failure to consider the Applicant’s Claim as a Convention Refugee Abroad and a member of the Country of Asylum Class reasonable?
IV. Analysis
A. Credibility
[16] The Officer found that the Applicant lacked credibility. In the GCMS notes, the Officer notes that: “The applicant’s narrative in the interview had significant discrepancies in the timeline. The applicant was not able to present a cohesive narrative.”
[17] The Applicant argues that this is not reasonable. The Officer did not set out sufficient details to permit the Applicant to understand the basis for the Decision. Specifically, the Applicant notes that the Officer does not set out what portions of the Applicant’s narrative were problematic, what portions of the timeline had significant discrepancies or what portions of her narrative were incohesive.
[18] The Applicant states that the Officer ought to have stated their credibility findings in clear unmistakable terms with sufficient detail and explanation. In the context of a refugee claim, general, imprecise and vague conclusions are not sufficient; Vavilov at paras 102-105; Rahal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319 (CanLII) at para 46; and Hilo v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] FCJ No 228 (FCA) at para 6.
[19] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s reasons lack sufficient details, clarity and precision and therefore, the findings concerning her credibility are not reasonable.
[20] The Respondent argues that the Decision and the Officer’s findings on credibility are reasonable. The Respondent pointed to this Court’s jurisprudence, underscoring that officers have significant expertise and experience in analysing applications, and that the Courts must give considerable deference to an officer when reviewing a decision. Officers are presumed to have considered and weighed all the evidence presented in an application. In this case, the Officer interviewed the Applicant and the Decision is based on the Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s evidence, including her demeanour and responses to questions given during the interview.
[21] I agree that visa officers possess considerable expertise and experience, and that they may draw on that knowledge to make inferences and reach conclusions based on information and documentation provided in support of an application. Their conclusions are entitled to deference, and where a range of possible outcomes is available, this Court ought not intervene, absent clear reviewable errors. I also agree that officers’ decisions are not held to a standard of perfection, that reasons ought to be read as a whole, and that judicial review is not a “treasure hunt for errors”
. However, decision-makers must clearly set out the reasons for the conclusions drawn and meet the hallmark standards set out in Vavilov – transparent, intelligible and justified.
[22] During the hearing of this application, counsel for the Respondent took the Court through the interview notes of the Officer to illustrate that the Officer’s findings were reasonable, and to illustrate that the Applicant ought to have been aware of the Officer’s concerns with respect to the discrepancies in her timeline and lack of cohesiveness in her narrative.
[23] The Respondent argued that credibility determinations are entitled to deference as such findings are within “the heartland of the discretion of triers of fact”
, which ought not be overturned unless they are perverse, capricious or made without regard to the evidence.
[24] The difficulty with this argument is two-fold: first, the interview notes were not part of the reasons for Decision; second, it is not proper for counsel to supplement the Officer’s reasons for Decision. I am persuaded by the Applicant’s assertion that this amounts to improper “bootstrapping”
of the Officer’s reasons for Decision.
[25] The Officer’s Decision does not set out in sufficient detail the nature of the specific credibility concerns that they had. The Decision is not transparent, intelligible and justified - The Officer’s credibility findings are not reasonable.
B. Convention Refugee and Asylum Class Assessment
[26] In addition, the Applicant argues that the Officer’s failure to evaluate the Applicant’s eligibility as a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class and as a member of the Country of Asylum Class is unreasonable. The Officer did not analyse her risk profile as a young, single, uneducated female with no family support. This, coupled with the extensive country condition evidence that corroborate the Applicant’s experiences and fears of returning to Somalia to be forced into marriage with a member of Al-Shabaab, renders the Decision unreasonable.
[27] The Applicant argues that members of particular social groups protected by section 96 includes individuals fearful of gender-based persecution; Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.
[28] The Respondent argues that applicants must link adverse country condition evidence to their personal situation; Gebrewldi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2017 FC 621 at para 27 and 35; Abreham v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 908 at para 23; and Walu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 824. The Respondent argued that the Applicant failed to make the necessary linkages and pointed to the Applicant’s response in her application form. I agree; however, a review of the Decision does not clearly articulate this as a reason for the Officer’s failure to find that the Applicant was a member of the Convention Refugee or Asylum Class. The GCMS notes state:
…I am not satisfied that the applicant meets the definition to meet the criteria for either convention refugee class or country of asylum class.
… I am not satisfied with the credibility of the applicant and so am not able ascertain eligibility. Their responses did not allay my concerns that they do not meet the definitions of either the convention refugee or country of asylum class.
[29] The Applicant argued that the Officer’s reasons do not demonstrate that they engaged with the Applicant’s risk profile or the country condition evidence that corroborated her fears. I agree.
[30] A review of the Officer’s notes seems to suggest that, because the Officer found the Applicant uncredible, it was not necessary to engage in a full assessment of the Applicant’s refugee claim. However, as noted by the Federal Court of Appeal, credibility findings do not prevent a person from being a refugee if other evidence establishes both the subjective and objective branches of the test for refugee status; Manickan v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2006, FC 1525 at para 3, citing Attakora v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 99 N.R. 168 (FCA).
[31] The Officer’s failure to engage in an analysis of the Applicant’s refugee claim was an error and was unreasonable.
V. Conclusion
[32] The Applicant has persuaded the Court that the reasons for the Decision are not transparent, intelligible, or justified in supporting the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant lacked credibility, particularly given the finding that the narrative timeline had discrepancies and lacked cohesion.
[33] Similarly, the Applicant has demonstrated that the Officer’s failure to conduct a complete analysis of her application under the Convention Refugee Abroad Class or the Country of Asylum Class rendered the Decision unreasonable.
[34] The parties did not pose questions for certification, and I agree that there are none.
Email this Content