Docket: IMM-22605-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1936
Ottawa, Ontario, December 8, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lafrenière
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GIRMAY ABRAHAM TEKLE |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Girmay Abraham Tekle, seeks judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27 [IRPA] of a decision of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer [Officer] dated November 15, 2024 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or as a member of the Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad designated class [Decision].
[2] For the reasons set out below, the application is dismissed.
II. Background Facts
[3] The facts below are culled from the material that was before the Officer at the time the Decision was made.
A. 2018 Permanent Residence Application
[4] In April 2018, the Applicant sought a permanent resident visa to Canada [2018 PR Application] claiming to be citizen of Eritrea named “Ghirmay Abraham Teklie”
with a date of birth of “1996-12-15.”
[5] In his 2018 PR Application narrative, the Applicant included the following details. After dropping out of school at age 15 to help look after his father, he worked as a carpenter in a metal and wood shop. Although he earned minimum wage, he supported his family well. In January 2014, he was ordered to take military training at Mai-Seraw. After completing military training in May 2014, he was deployed in Asmara to play soccer with the club of Godaif. In December 2016, he was summoned and met with security agents. He was presented with a plan to spy on citizens and report complaints and critics against the government, which he refused. He was subsequently threatened with detention. In the first week of January 2017, the Applicant travelled by bus to Massawa and joined a smuggling boat from Massawa to Port Sudan. After travelling for almost a day the “boat began to drown”
and he was rescued by a Sudanese navy boat. After being detained for a couple of weeks, he was taken to the Shegereab refugee camp.
[6] The 2018 PR Application was refused because the Applicant’s refugee status document from Sudan could not be identified as authentic.
B. 2022 Permanence Residence Application
[7] In February 2022, the Applicant re-applied for a permanent residence visa to Canada, this time as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or the Humanitarian-protected Persons Abroad class [2022 PR Application]. In his application, he used a different spelling of his name “Girmay Abraham Tekle”
and a different date of birth “1996-05-12.”
[8] Details set out in his narrative were also different to those set out in his 2018 narrative. The Applicant stated that after dropping out of school to look after his father, he worked as a daily laborer in the barber shop in Asmara. In January 2014, he was caught by Eritrea security when he first tried to flee the country into Ethiopia. He was taken to Mai Seraw military detention center and after four months of detention, he was transferred to the Gergera training camp, following which he was assigned to the Eritrea defence force and he was deployed to an agricultural farm owned by the defence force. After eighteen months of mandatory service, he tried to demobilize but was forced into indefinite military service. In December 2016, his house was surrounded by soldiers while he was at work. The soldiers humiliated and threatened to jail his mother if she did not hand him over to be brought to the Gergera military training camp. On December 31, 2016, he sought again to flee Eritrea. He travelled by car to Massawa, following which he joined a smuggling boat to Sudan. Upon reaching the port, he sought refugee protection.
C. Interview of the Applicant
[9] On October 16, 2024, the Applicant was interviewed by the Officer in Kampala, Uganda with the assistance of an interpreter. The Global Case Management System [GCMS] contains the Officer’s detailed notes of the interview with the Applicant, including the questions posed by the Officer and the Applicant’s answers.
[10] The Applicant was informed at the beginning of the interview of the obligation to answer truthfully all questions put to him for the purpose of the examination, as required by subsection 16(1) of the IRPA. Over the course of the interview, the Officer asked the Applicant to provide details of his refugee claim, including the events or reasons that prompted him to leave Eritrea. The Applicant confirmed that he had previously applied to come to Canada as a refugee in 2017. The Applicant was asked point-blank whether the story he was giving during the interview was the same story he had provided in his first application. The Applicant answered “yes.”
The Officer then asked, “Are you sure?”
The Applicant responded that “there could be a difference…but the history is the same.”
At that point, the Officer indicated to the Applicant that they had some concerns that he had not been truthful in his applications and proceeded to list them. The Applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns over the credibility of the information he had provided, including the discrepancies between his 2022 and 2018 narratives.
[11] In responding to the Officer’s concerns, the Applicant stated that two different individuals had helped him in filling out the forms and that his real story was recounted in the second application. The Officer acknowledged that the Applicant did not speak English but that he remained responsible for ensuring the truthfulness of his application. The Officer noted that the Applicant’s sponsor in Canada could have helped verify the forms. The Officer informed the Applicant that he had to rely heavily on his credibility as there was a lack of supporting documentation to corroborate his story. The Applicant was asked whether he had anything else to add and the Applicant answered “No.”
III. The Decision
[12] The Officer’s Decision is largely contained in their GCMS notes dated November 4, 2024, which form part of the reasons for decision. The notes read in part as follows:
Based on the interview and review of the file, I do not find the applicant was credible.
- The narrative varied significantly between the first application and the second application. Dates and some details aligned however significant details such as what the applicant was doing and how the applicant fled the country varied. Given there are limited documents to support these applications a high degree of importance is placed on an applicant’s credibility. As an explanation for the two stories applicant states he used a different form filler however I do not find that to be sufficient as applicant had the same sponsor both times and states this sponsor was a family member. I do not find it likely that the applicant would have been unable or unaware of the information provided in his file. Given the concerns with applicant’s credibility. I am unable to assess their eligibility or admissibility/Applicant was given procedural fairness at the interview. Their responses did not allay my concerns that they do not meet the definitions of either the convention refugee or country of asylum class.
Application refused.
[13] The Applicant’s 2022 PR Application was formally refused by letter dated November 15, 2024. The Officer found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada because they were not satisfied that the Applicant had been truthful or forthcoming with the information he provided in support of his application. When all the information with which there were credibility concerns from the assessment of the Applicant’s application was removed, the Officer considered that there was insufficient evidence remaining in the application to determine the Applicant satisfied the requirements of the IRPA.
IV. Analysis
A. Procedural Fairness
[14] In his memorandum of argument dated January 19, 2025, and his reply memorandum dated March 3, 2025, the Applicant submitted that his procedural fairness rights were breached due to the incompleteness of the GCMS record and the interview notes. The Applicant maintained that the GCMS only contained a few lines of the Officer’s decision and no part of the Applicant’s interview or the history of the application.
[15] The Applicant did not take issue with the succinctness of the Decision. Rather, his concern was the lack of a meaningful record that would permit him and the Court to verify whether the Officer provided a genuine opportunity to respond to the credibility issues. According to the Applicant, the Officer’s assertion that “the Applicant was given procedural fairness at the interview”
was of no value if there is no documentation of how any perceived inconsistency was put to the Applicant for explanation. The Applicant requested that the Decision be set aside on this basis alone since the Applicant’s testimony was central to the finding under review.
[16] However, at the hearing of the judicial review application, counsel for the Applicant conceded that his procedural fairness argument had been largely defanged after he received the certified tribunal record [CTR] on or about July 3, 2025. It would have been useful for the Court to receive a further memorandum of argument from the Applicant to explain how the procedure followed by the Officer was unfair having regard to all the circumstances disclosed in the CTR.
[17] A court assessing procedural fairness determines whether the procedure used by the decision-maker was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances including the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for the individual(s) affected: Gordillo v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 23 at para 63. The ultimate question is whether the applicant knew the case they had to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond.
[18] It is clear on the record before me that the Officer raised with the Applicant concerns over the fact that he submitted two narratives, both sworn to be truthful in his respective PR applications, that “varied significantly.”
The Applicant was given an opportunity to reconcile the inconsistencies between two sworn narratives but chose instead to point the finger at the individuals who assisted him in completing the forms. I conclude that no procedural fairness issues arise in this case.
B. Reasonableness of the Decision
[19] The issue in this case comes down to whether the Decision to refuse the Applicant’s 2022 PR Application on the basis of credibility is reasonable.
[20] It is settled law that the standard of review for whether an applicant is a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or the country of asylum class is reasonableness: Barud v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1441 at para 5, citing Tesfamichael v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 337 at para 8.
[21] Reasonableness review begins with the principle of judicial restraint and respect for the distinct role of administrative decision-makers, and the Court does not conduct a de novo analysis or attempt to decide the issue itself (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 13, 83 [Vavilov]). Rather, it starts with the reasons of the administrative decision-maker and assesses whether the decision is reasonable in outcome and process, considered in relation to the factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision (Vavilov at paras 81, 83, 87, 99).
[22] A reasonable decision is one that is justified, transparent, and intelligible to the individuals subject to it, reflecting “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, the record before the decision-maker, and the submissions of the parties (Vavilov at paras 81, 85, 91, 94-96, 99, 127-128).
[23] I conclude that the Officer’s Decision to refuse the 2022 PR Application was reasonable. During the interview with the Officer, the Applicant made no effort to explain the discrepancies between his 2018 and 2022 narratives. There is no dispute that the omissions and variances were significant, such as the differences between his name, his date of birth, the occupation he had in Eritrea, and the circumstances that brought him to Sudan. Nor could they be explained away as mere peripheral details. They spoke to the Applicant’s very alleged risk/fear, military service, and flight from Eritrea.
[24] In my view, the Officer was amply justified to raise “concerns over the credibility of the information”
the Applicant was providing at his interview. Both narratives were dated less than two years apart (2018 and 2020) and taken from PR applications signed and sworn by the Applicant to be truthful. These were the Applicant’s own words and stories, and it was therefore reasonable for the Officer to expect he could explain the variations. The Officer’s assessment that the Applicant was not credible was reasonably based on the documentary evidence and on first-hand impressions of the Applicant’s responses to interview questions.
[25] As for the Applicant’s submissions that the Officer erred by failing to assess all possible grounds of persecution and in assessing whether the Applicant met the definition of country of asylum claim, I find that they have no merit. They ignore the Officer’s credibility concerns that are dispositive of the Applicant’s application.
V. Conclusion
[26] I find the Officer’s Decision to refuse the Applicant’s 2022 PR Application on the basis of credibility to be intelligible, transparent and justified. The Officer raised serious credibility concerns stemming from the fact that the Applicant submitted two different narratives of persecution in his two PR applications. The Officer specified that “significant details such as what the Applicant was doing and how the Applicant fled the country varied.”
The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to respond to these concerns at his interview, but his explanation that different people completed his forms was found to be insufficient.
[27] When the record is assessed as a whole, it is clear the Officer’s Decision bears all the hallmarks of reasonableness and ought not to be disturbed.
Email this Content