Federal Court Grants Judicial Review for Eritrean Refugee Applicant

Date: 20260407 Docket: IMM-2402-25 Citation: 2026 FC 446 Ottawa, Ontario, April 7, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicant, a citizen of Eritrea, applied for permanent residence as a member of the [NAME] designated class through a Group of Five Sponsorship Application. He claimed that, as a minor, he was forcibly conscripted by the [NAME], subjected to severe abuse, and ultimately forced into exile. The Applicant fled to Sudan, where he was granted refugee status by the [NAME] in April 2022. After war broke out in Sudan, he fled to Ethiopia. Due to anti‑Eritrean sentiment there, he subsequently fled to Uganda, where he currently resides. [ 2 ] As part of the sponsorship application, the Applicant was interviewed by an immigration officer [Officer] at the [NAME] in Kampala, Uganda. The Officer rejected the Applicant’s application based solely on an adverse credibility determination concerning the Applicant’s military service in Eritrea. The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision. [ 3 ] In my view, the Officer’s credibility assessment is unreasonable because it is based on a “microscopic” examination of the Applicant’s evidence: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 472 at paras 26–27; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 112 at para 30; He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 2 at para 23 [ He ]. Indeed, a review of the Officer’s interview notes demonstrates a “granular or overzealous analysis of the evidence” : [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 at para 23 [ [NAME] ]; see also: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1084 at paras 35–36. [ 4 ] The Officer found that the Applicant was not credible for three reasons. First, the Applicant was unfamiliar with his father’s rank in the [NAME], specifically, whether he was an officer or a regular soldier. The Applicant explained that he had never seen his father in uniform and, further, that he had not seen him since he was 16 years old (9 years before his interview): Global Case Management System [GCMS] Notes, Interview Notes dated November 3, 2024 [Interview Notes], Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at 7. The Officer, however, did not consider the Applicant’s answer credible. I agree with the Applicant that knowledge of his father’s rank is “peripheral” to his claim of forced conscription, child soldiering, and risk of persecution: He at para 23; [NAME] at para 23. [ 5 ] Second, the Officer was not satisfied with the Applicant’s knowledge of the ranks in the [NAME]. As set out below, this was not a case of the Applicant having no knowledge; his responses demonstrate a general understanding of a “hierarchical chain of command” : Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 34. [ 6 ] In answer to the Officer’s question, “how do you recognize an officer” , the Applicant responded that “[t]hey have shoulder patches” . Further, when questioned about the difference between an officer and a regular soldier, the Applicant explained that “[t]hey are the same, but the officer he has a position” . With respect to the ranks in the [NAME], the Applicant stated that “[t]here is the superior of gantha, group of a few people, superior, then officer of the brigade and then off [ sic ] the division.” However, when asked about “title” associated with those positions, the Applicant responded, “we do not use those” . When the Officer asked whether there is “rank” in the [NAME], the Applicant said, “[t]he high officer only” : Interview Notes, CTR at 7–8. [ 7 ] Further to this exchange, the Officer found that if the Applicant had really been in the [NAME], he would have been able to provide more detailed information as “he would have received training on the military structure” : [NAME] dated November 3, 2024, CTR at 4. I agree with the Applicant that the Officer’s assumption that, as a child conscript, he “would necessarily be well-versed in a formalized rank structure is speculative” : Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 34. [ 8 ] Significantly, the Officer notes that he has “interviewed many other refugee applicants from this region” : [NAME], CTR at 3. A comparative approach is, however, unreasonable as it fails to consider the Applicant’s particular circumstances. The Officer thus based his adverse credibility determination on an unreasonable expectation of what the Applicant should have known about the [NAME]’s military structure. [ 9 ] Third, the Officer determined that the Applicant was not credible because he was not satisfied with the Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the weapon he had used in the [NAME] (a Kalashnikov rifle). Specifically, the Officer asked the Applicant: [redacted] [ 10 ] Finally, the Officer told the Applicant to “just do it in the air, like if you were holding it” . According to the Officer’s notes, the Applicant then “mimes that he is pulling the magazine out of the weapon” , but that he failed to “action the required level to release the magazine” and failed to “pull the bolt to eject the loaded cartridge” . When the Officer asked the Applicant whether he was “forgetting some steps” , the Applicant responded that it had “been a long time” . The Officer took issue with this answer, stating that the Applicant must have loaded and unloaded the weapon every day. The Applicant replied that it was not every day: Interview Notes, CTR at 8–9. [ 11 ] This exchange between the Officer and the Applicant is illustrative of the Officer’s overzealous approach. In his interview notes, the Officer highlights the training he received from the [NAME] on how to secure different types of weapons, including a Kalashnikov. In addition, prior to the Applicant’s interview, the Officer verified from open sources the schematics of the weapon to “refresh” his memory and to ensure that he was using correct information: [NAME], CTR at 4. [ 12 ] I agree with the Applicant that, with the passage of time, “memory gaps” regarding mechanical details are “hardly improbable” : Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 35. This is especially the case here, where the Applicant had left the [NAME] over four years prior. While the Officer refreshed his own memory about the functioning of the weapon before the interview, he unreasonably required the Applicant to draw or act out the weapon’s operation on the spot. It was wholly unreasonable for the Officer to make an adverse credibility finding on the basis that the Applicant did not perfectly mime the weapon’s operation given that four years had passed since he last handled such equipment. [ 13 ] Furthermore, the level of detail the Applicant was expected to recall fails to be sensitive to his lived experience. In his narrative, the Applicant alleged that, at the age of 16, after completing Grade 8, he was apprehended by [NAME] and taken to a military prison where he endured harsh conditions for three months. He was then transferred to a military training facility and forcibly conscripted. The Applicant stated that he suffered severe abuse during his training, after which he was compelled to perform various labour assignments, which he described as “endless military slavery” : Applicant’s Schedule 2 Declaration, CTR at 23–24. [ 14 ] Notably, the Officer did not ask the Applicant any questions about his narrative or his military experience. Rather, based solely on the Applicant’s responses to his questions about the military structure of the [NAME] and how to operate a Kalashnikov rifle, the Officer determined that the Applicant’s narrative was not “truthful” and that he could not “correctly assess” what the Applicant did during his military service: [NAME], CTR at 4; see also: Interview Notes, CTR at 9. [ 15 ] For these reasons, the Officer’s rejection of the Applicant’s permanent residence application based on a lack of credibility is unreasonable. There is no need to address the other alleged errors raised by the Applicant. [ 16 ] The application for judicial review is granted. The matter is remitted for redetermination by another officer. The parties did not propose any questions for certification, and I agree that none arise.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2402-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The immigration officer’s decision dated December 16, 2024, is set aside and the matter is remitted for determination by a different officer. No question is certified for appeal. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2402-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 26, 2026 judgment and reasons: [NAME] J. DATED: April 7, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent