Federal Court Grants Judicial Review Due to Procedural Fairness Violation

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260617 Docket: IMM-23411-24 Citation: 2026 FC 818 Ottawa, Ontario, June 17, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of a Canadian Visa Officer [Officer] refusing his application for a permanent resident (PR) visa as a member of the [NAME] or the [NAME]. [ 2 ] The Applicant says he fears persecution in Somalia from [NAME], a [COMPANY] with ties to [NAME] who threatened him and his sister when their father resisted their extortion demands. The Applicant and his sister worked on their father’s farm in Somalia at that time. [ 3 ] The refusal of the Applicant’s PR visa was based on a finding that his story lacks credibility, because his siblings who remained in Somalia had not been targeted by [NAME]. [ 4 ] The Applicant submits that the decision should be overturned because he was denied procedural fairness and the Officer’s credibility findings are unfounded. For the reasons set out below, this application will be granted because I find the Officer denied the Applicant procedural fairness by relying on knowledge of [NAME]’s methods of operation that were never disclosed to the Applicant.

I. Background [ 5 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Somalia currently residing in Uganda as a refugee. [ 6 ] The Applicant says he was persecuted in Somalia by the [COMPANY] known as [NAME]. He says they extorted his father and threatened to forcibly recruit the Applicant and force his sister into marriage if his father did not pay. The Applicant says [APPELLANT] came to his home several times looking for him, and after he left, he says they told his father they would kill him if he returned. [ 7 ] As a result of this threat, the Applicant and his sister travelled to Uganda and claimed asylum there. The Applicant is recognized as a refugee in Uganda. [ 8 ] The Applicant then applied for PR in Canada as a member of the [NAME] or the [NAME]. A group in Canada applied to privately sponsor the Applicant’s resettlement. [ 9 ] The Applicant was interviewed in October 2024 by the Canadian Visa Officer in Uganda. Following the interview, the Applicant’s application was refused in November 2024 because the Officer did not find the Applicant’s story credible given that he had six younger siblings who still lived at home and had not been targeted by [NAME].

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 10 ] The determinative issue in this case is whether there was a breach of procedural fairness. In light of my finding on that issue, it will not be necessary to address the Applicant’s other submissions. [ 11 ] Procedural fairness is to be reviewed on a standard that is akin to “correctness,” although technically no standard of review is applied at all: [NAME] Company v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 ( [NAME] ) at para 55; see also [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2021 FCA 26 at para 107. Under this approach, a reviewing Court is required to assess whether the decision-making process was fair in all of the circumstances, “with a sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for an individual…” ( [NAME] at para 54). The ultimate question is “whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” ( [NAME] at para 56).

III. Analysis [ 12 ] The Officer’s decision rests largely on a negative credibility finding based on an alleged inconsistency or implausibility in the Applicant’s narrative. The Officer questioned the Applicant’s claim that he was threatened with forced recruitment by [NAME] because there was no evidence that the group had directed similar threats towards any of the Applicant’s siblings who remained in Somalia. [ 13 ] The Officer summarizes the source of his credibility concerns in the following phrase from the interview notes: “Al Shabaab recruits youth to be trained to use weapons and to be part of their militia. As long as you are a youth you are a target. It is not credible that all your siblings are not a target and you are.” It is noteworthy that the Officer’s credibility concerns did not arise from any contradiction, discrepancy, or inconsistency in the Applicant’s story. Instead, it appears that the Officer relied on their own knowledge of how [NAME] operates. [ 14 ] This case bears similarities to [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1281 ( [APPELLANT] ). In that case, the applicant applied for permanent residence as Convention refugee or member of the Country of Asylum class abroad. The applicant was of Syrian nationality, but the officer was concerned that he had a pathway to Armenian citizenship because he was ethnically Armenian. Justice Tsimberis found that the decision was procedurally unfair because the officer did not give the applicant notice of the concerns before the interview, nor did they issue a procedural fairness letter (PFL) after the interview. Justice Tsimberis explained at paragraph 21 that “[i]t was procedurally unfair for the Officer to challenge the Applicant during the interview on an issue that did not directly arise from the Applicant’s application materials but from the Officer’s own experience without providing notice of said concern through a procedural fairness letter at some point in the administrative process (either before or after the interview).” [ 15 ] The situation in this case is similar to [NAME] in that the Officer’s credibility concerns arose not from the Applicant’s materials, but from the Officer’s own experience. I find that, as in [NAME] , a PFL was required to meet the duty of procedural fairness in this case. Had the Applicant received a PFL, he could have provided submissions to address the Officer’s questions about why his siblings had not been targeted. The Applicant could not be expected to have these answers in the interview, given that this was the first time he was notified of the concerns and considering that he lives in a refugee camp, far from his family and siblings. [ 16 ] In this case, the duty of procedural fairness was at the higher end of the spectrum – the Applicant is recognized as a refugee in Uganda and had an opportunity to be permanently resettled in Canada as a privately sponsored refugee. This is not a situation where the Applicant could simply reapply to remedy the defects in his application. As put in [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1732: [10] Still, as the applicant points out, the impact of the Officer’s decision on Mr. [NAME] is significant, as it involves the determination of whether Canada will afford him protection from alleged harm. [ADDRESS] has recognized that the impact of decisions in respect of Convention refugee abroad applications merits heightened procedural fairness protections compared to other visa applications: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 622 at paras 23–25; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 98 at para 15, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2004 FCA 49 at para 61… [ 17 ] For the reasons set out above, I find that the Officer did not meet this standard of procedural fairness. The application for judicial review will be granted. The decision must be quashed and remitted back for reconsideration. The Applicant shall be given a PFL if the Officer has any concerns that do not arise directly from the Applicant’s materials or the legislation. [ 18 ] There is no question of [NAME] importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-23411-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The decision is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back for reconsideration by a different officer. The Applicant shall be given a procedural fairness letter and opportunity to respond if the officer has any concerns that do not arise directly from the Applicant’s materials or the legislation. There is no question of [NAME] importance for certification. "William F. Pentney" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-23411-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 9, 2026

REASONS and

JUDGMENT: pentney j. DATED: june 17, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Applicant [COUNSEL] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], ON For The Applicant [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, ON For The Respondent