Hagos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1917

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] Mr. Issak Michael Hagos (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”), refusing his application for permanent residence as a member of the “Convention Refugees Abroad” or as a member of the “Humanitarian-protected Persons Abroad” classes, pursuant to sections 145 and 147, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”). Credibility was the determinative issue.

[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Eritrea. He was registered as a UNHCR refugee in Ethiopia. He came to Ethiopia after escaping from the prison at Mai-Seraw, Eritrea. He then travelled by foot to Ethiopia.

[3] The Applicant is now the subject of a sponsorship by a cousin and friend in Canada.

[4] The Applicant was interviewed by the Officer on November 24, 2023. The Officer did not believe his account about his escape from the prison at Mai-Seraw.

[5] The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable. He notes that the Officer referred to “inconsistencies” in his evidence but did not identify what the inconsistencies were.

[6] The Applicant also submits that the Officer made unreasonable implausibility findings. He argues that the Officer’s implausibility findings are either unsupported by the evidence or lack a material basis.

[7] The Respondent submits that the Officer’s conclusion was reasonable. He observes that the Officer raised his concerns to the Applicant but was not satisfied with the answers.

[8] The Respondent submits that the decision shows that the Officer reasonably considered the evidence presented and that there is no basis for judicial intervention.

[9] The merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, following the instructions in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.

[10] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.

[11] I agree with the Applicant’s arguments that the Officer did not identify the inconsistencies in his evidence. At the same time, the Officer based his decision in part on alleged inconsistencies. This does not yield “justifiable, transparent and intelligible” reasons.

[12] I also agree with the Applicant’s position that the Officer made unreasonable implausibility findings. I refer to the decision in Diaz Puentes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1335 at paragraph 16 where the Court said the following:

However, plausibility findings should be made only in the clearest of cases, i.e., if the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant.

[13] In my opinion, the Applicant’s evidence is not so implausible to allow the Officer to “reasonably” conclude that “the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant”, as observed by the Court in Diaz Puentes, supra.

[14] In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision will be set aside and the matter remitted for re-determination by a different officer. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-16291-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different officer for re-determination. There is no question for certification.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: