Tesfay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1153

Date: 20260914

Docket: IMM-1305-25

Citation: 2026 FC 1153

Toronto, Ontario, September 14, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] The Applicant, a 36-year-old citizen of Eritrea residing in Uganda as a UNHCR refugee, applied for permanent residence as a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class or a member of the Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad Designated Class through a Group of Five [G5] sponsorship application.

[2] The Applicant’s claim was based on the Applicant having failed to complete her national military service, illegally exiting the country and threats received from the military police. Specifically, she stated that she was compelled to attend at the Sawa military training centre, where she completed high school in 2006. She was then assigned to indefinite, compulsory military conscription by the Eritrean government until the end of 2015. In 2016, she married her husband. She states that her husband, as an elementary and high school teacher, was forced by government and military officials to deliver pro-government seminars to students. However, she states, after expressing anti-regime sentiments during these seminars, he was labelled as a political opponent, arrested in November 2018 and imprisoned. She states that he escaped from detention in late December 2019 or early January 2020 and fled to Sudan. As a result of her husband fleeing the country, the Applicant states that she was targeted and threatened by members of the military police who came to her home demanding to know her husband’s whereabouts. As a result, and with the assistance of a smuggler, she fled to Uganda with her children in June 2021, where she later reunited with her husband and advanced a successful claim for refugee protection.

[3] As part of the G5 sponsorship application, the Applicant and her husband were interviewed by an Immigration Officer at the International Organization for Migration in Kampala, Uganda. During the interview, the Officer asked the Applicant and her husband (first separately and then together) for details relating to the husband’s escape from detention and where, and for how long, he resided in Eritrea before fleeing to Sudan. There was an inconsistency between the evidence of the Applicant and that of her husband. The Applicant stated that her husband remained in the family home for approximately five to six days after his escape and never left the home but then, later in the interview, she stated that he was home for ten days. The husband, on the other hand, stated that he was home for approximately three days after his escape but spent the nights at the home of his aunt, who lived nearby, in order to avoid police detention. This was the only concern identified by the Officer during the interview.

[4] In a letter dated December 13, 2024, the Officer rejected the application for permanent residence on the sole basis of inconsistencies between the Applicants’ stories, leading to a finding that they did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada as members of either the Convention Refugee Abroad Class or the Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad Designated Class, as per sections 145 or 147 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. The following is the only explanation provided by the Officer in the letter:

[…] After carefully assessing all factors relative to your application, I am not satisfied that you are a member of any of the classes prescribed. The concerns in relation to you not meeting the definition as a Convention Refugee or Member of the Asylum Class were put to you during your interview. The responses provided did not allay my concerns that you do not meet either definition per Sections 145 or 147 of the Regulations. […]

[5] The Global Case Management System notes provide the substance of the reasons for the Officer’s determination. The notes provide, in part, as follows:

[…] Based on the interview and review of the file, I do not find the applicants were credible.

I have interviewed many other refugee applicants from this region and read through the IRB documentation binders about Eritrea.

The applicants gave a very different version of their last few days together in Eritrea, where the male applicant is describing his release escape from Jail in a way that is irreconciliable [sic] with his spouse. Since this is at the core of the refugee claim of the family, I am not satisfied that they actually meet any of the definitions. […]

[6] The sole issue for determination is whether the Officer’s decision was unreasonable. In assessing whether a decision is unreasonable, the Court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified. 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 [Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85]. The Court will intervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [Adeniji-Adele v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 418 at para 11].

[7] The Applicant asserts that the Officer’s adverse credibility determination was unreasonable because the inconsistency in the evidence identified by the Officer did not go to the core of the claim, nor was it a key element of the claim. The Respondent asserts that there is no merit to the Applicant’s argument, as the inconsistency was in relation to “central facts of their basis of claim” and the Officer reasonably found that they had failed to explain the inconsistency in their evidence.

[8] I agree with the Applicant. I find that the Officer’s credibility determination was unreasonable because it was based on a mischaracterization of the inconsistency in the evidence before the Officer. Whether or not the husband returned to their home for three days or five to ten days and whether he slept at home or at his aunt’s house during those evenings does not go to the core of the Applicant’s refugee claim. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, I find that these inconsistencies are not important elements of whether the husband escaped from detention or whether the military police came looking for the husband and threatened the Applicant. Rather, these inconsistencies go to a peripheral issue that, on its own, cannot reasonably form the basis of a negative credibility finding [Mecha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 472 at paras 26–27].

[9] The core of the Applicant’s claim was the family’s adverse experiences with the Eritrean government — including the Applicant’s mandatory, indefinite military conscription by the Eritrean government, her husband’s 15-month imprisonment due to expressing his anti-regime sentiments, the Applicant’s experience with the military police and the family’s need to flee to Sudan due to their fear of persecution. No credibility issues were raised by the Officer related to any of these aspects of the Applicant’s claim. In fact, these claims were not even analyzed by the Officer in their decision. Instead, the Officer fixated on a peripheral issue and used the inconsistency related thereto to underpin their adverse credibility finding and dismiss the entirety of the Applicant’s claim without further analysis. This was unreasonable and warrants the decision being set aside.

[10] The application for judicial review shall be granted, the Officer’s decision set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

[11] The Applicant requests that an award of cost be granted because “special reasons” exist within the meaning of Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22 — namely, that the Respondent failed to produce the Officer’s interview notes as part of the Rule 9 response. The Applicant asserts that the omission of the interview notes with the Rule 9 reasons at the leave stage hindered the Applicant’s and the Court’s ability to understand the basis of the Officer’s concerns and impeded the Applicant’s ability to understand the reasons as to why the Officer found that her and her husband’s responses led to the finding that she was not credible.

[12] I find that there is no basis for an award of costs. Rule 9 only requires that the tribunal provide the decision (the letter dated December 13, 2024) and the written reasons for the decision (the GCMS abstract dated October 31, 2024) [Mohamed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 604; Teklemichael v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1098 at para 16]. The tribunal was not required, at the leave stage, to produce the interview notes.

[13] Neither party proposed a question for certification and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1305-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted. The decision of the Officer dated December 13, 2024, is hereby set aside and the Applicant’s application is remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

2. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.

3. There shall be no award of costs.

“Mandy Aylen”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: