Federal Court Orders New Hearing for Refugee Appeal Due to Credibility Issues

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260707 Docket: IMM-3204-25 Citation: 2026 FC 911 Ottawa, Ontario, July 7, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Ngo BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT] [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision of the [NAME] of the [NAME] [[NAME]] confirming the decision of the [NAME] Protection Division [[NAME]] and finding the Applicant neither a [NAME] nor a person in need of protection. The Applicant argues that [NAME] erred in not holding an oral hearing pursuant to provisions in the Immigration and [NAME] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 2 ] For the reasons set out below, the application for judicial review is granted.

I. Background and Decision Under Review [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of India and born a Sikh. He arrived in Canada on a study permit, fell out of status in 2013 and in 2023, made a claim for [NAME] protection. His [NAME] claim was denied by the [NAME] due to a lack of credibility. [ 4 ] [NAME], the Applicant submitted a sworn statement outlining the circumstances that led to his claiming [NAME] protection through his prior representative. He asserts that this former representative advised him to provide false evidence in support of his claim. He acknowledged that the claim made to the [NAME] was not true but asserted that he faced a different risk in India. In the appeal to [NAME], he submitted that he had been improperly represented by his former representative and outlined his actual risk as a non-practising Sikh man who is cohabiting with a [NAME]. The Applicant complied with the relevant protocols with respect to allegations of [NAME] and requested an oral hearing if [NAME] sought to rely on a credibility finding to resolve the appeal. [ 5 ] [NAME] considered subsection 110(4) of the IRPA with respect to the admission of new evidence. [NAME] cited the applicable test, that they could only admit new evidence that arose after the [NAME]’s rejection of the claim, that was not reasonably available, or that could not reasonably have been expected to be presented at the time of the rejection. [NAME] accepted evidence on the claim of [NAME] but did not accept evidence relating to the Applicant’s common law status. [ 6 ] In the Decision, [NAME] concluded that it preferred the [NAME]’s account over the Applicant’s submissions. It further accepted that the Applicant was in a common-law relationship. [NAME] found that credibility was the determinative factor in the appeal but declined to hold an oral hearing. [NAME] stated: “I may hold a hearing if I admit new evidence that raises a serious issue about the Appellant’s credibility, which is central to the claim, and would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. All 3 criteria must be met. However, I have reviewed the evidence and find that it is insufficient on its own to be determinative in the claim. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to have an oral hearing in response to the newly accepted evidence.” [ 7 ] [NAME]’s Decision is the subject of this judicial review.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 8 ] The Applicant asserts that [NAME]’s Decision is both unreasonable and unfair, as procedural fairness requires an oral hearing where a [NAME]’s credibility is a concern. [ 9 ] The merits of the Decision are to be reviewed on a reasonableness standard of review ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [ [NAME] ]), as agreed by the parties. In [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FCA 96 [ [NAME] ], the Federal Court of Appeal stated that [NAME]’s interpretation of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA was subject to review on the reasonableness standard, in accordance with the presumption that an administrative body’s interpretation of its home statute is owed ( [NAME] at paras 29, 74). The parties confirmed the reasonableness standard of review in post-hearing submissions with respect to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. [ 10 ] On judicial review, the Court must consider whether a decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [NAME] at para 99). [ 11 ] A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review ( [NAME] at para 90). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision-maker misapprehended the evidence before them ( [NAME] at paras 125–126). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 12 ] However, no matter how much deference is accorded to administrative tribunals in the exercise of their discretion to make procedural choices, the ultimate question on the issue of procedural fairness remains whether the Applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 56).

III. Analysis [ 13 ] Subsection 110(6) of the IRPA addresses the criteria for [NAME] to hold an oral hearing: (6) The [NAME] may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3); (a) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; (b) that is central to the decision with respect to the [NAME] protection claim; and (c) that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the [NAME] protection claim. [ 14 ] The Applicant contends that the requirements under section 110(6) were met, and that [NAME]’s Decision clearly assessed the Applicant’s credibility as a determinative issue. As such, [NAME] did not reasonably justify its refusal to hold an oral hearing ( [NAME] v Minister of Employment and Immigration , 1985 CanLII 65 (SCC) at paras 58 - 59). [ 15 ] The Applicant underlines that the jurisprudence holds that while [NAME] retains discretion to hold an oral hearing, a hearing must generally be held where the statutory requirements in subsection 110(6) are met (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 911 at paras 9 - 11 [ [NAME] ]). In the cases that followed [NAME] , the Court also considered that under subsection 110(6), [NAME] retains a discretion on the question of whether to hold an oral hearing, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably in the circumstances ( [APPELLANT] at para 11). [ 16 ] I agree with the Applicant that in its determination of the appeal, [NAME] made findings that raised serious issues with respect to the Applicant’s credibility and referred to the new evidence that it had accepted, to do so. [NAME] assessed the different accounts between the Applicant’s affidavits and the former representative’s response and made credibility findings on the allegations of incompetence of counsel, as well as the Applicant’s credibility with respect to the arguments he raised on appeal with respect to his risk in India. [NAME] then relied on this finding of the Applicant’s credibility to assess the [NAME] decision, particularly as it relates to the [NAME]’s credibility findings. As such, [NAME] engaged with the evidence that raises a serious issue with respect of the Applicant's appeal and used that assessment to justify the rejection of his [NAME] claim but did not allow the Applicant to respond to these issues with an oral hearing. [ 17 ] In consideration of the above, [NAME]’s analysis in the Decision is not reasonably justified or transparent in declining to hold an oral hearing based on the applicable criteria under subsection 110(6). [ 18 ] [NAME] still had the discretion to refuse to hold a hearing, this discretion had to be exercised in a reasonable manner ( [NAME] at para 11). In this case, it failed to do so. [NAME]’s single paragraph refusing to hold a hearing is contradicted by the rest of the Decision.

Accordingly, [NAME]’s reasoning is neither transparent nor justified, making it unreasonable.

IV. Conclusion [ 19 ] The application for judicial review is granted. [ 20 ] The parties do not propose any question for certification and I agree that in these circumstances, none arise.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3204-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that :

1. The application for judicial review is granted.

2. The Decision of [NAME] is quashed, and the matter is remitted to another panel for reconsideration.

3. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3204-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 26, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: NGO J. DATED: JULY 7, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto (Ontario) For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT