Federal Court Upholds Ineligibility for Previous Refugee Claim

Date: 20260227 Docket: IMM-23358-24 Citation: 2026 FC 270 Toronto, Ontario, February 27, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] By decision dated November 18, 2024 [Decision], an Inland Enforcement Officer [Officer] of the Canada Border Services Agency [[NAME]] found the applicant, [NAME] [Applicant], ineligible for referral to the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] pursuant to paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [ Act ]. The Decision was based on evidence from [NAME] [UK], which showed the Applicant’s prior claim for refugee status in the UK under a false identity. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is dismissed. The Applicant’s arguments as to why the Officer’s finding of ineligibility is unreasonable cannot succeed based on a plain reading of paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act , which afforded no discretion to the Officer once its application was triggered. Nor can the Decision be considered unfair in circumstances where the Applicant was given the opportunity to provide his own documentation explaining his immigration history, but failed to do so.

II. Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant fled India in 1999, and by his own admission, he lived in the UK for many years and made a refugee claim, after which he lived in Italy under an Italian Residency Permit. He entered Canada in January 2019 on a visitor’s visa and made a refugee claim in Canada on June 3, 2021. [ 4 ] The Applicant’s immigration history is complicated by his use of different identities, spellings of his last name and his use of another person’s passport. [ 5 ] The [NAME] gave notice to the Applicant in a letter dated September 23, 2022, that it believed the Applicant may be ineligible including under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act . [ 6 ] The Applicant was invited to a [NAME] interview by letter dated February 10, 2023 [[NAME]]. The [NAME] advised the Applicant to bring documents regarding his immigration history in the UK and his status in Italy. [ 7 ] The Officer interviewed the Applicant on March 17, 2023, at which time the Officer asked the Applicant about the different spellings of his name on various travel documents and inquired about his immigration history under different identities. The Applicant acknowledged that he tried to travel from the UK to Canada in 2009 using a fraudulent passport and when he was stopped by [NAME], he made a refugee claim, which was eventually denied. During the interview the Applicant provided an image of an immigration visa to England that used the spelling [NAME] and not his current spelling of [NAME]. [ 8 ] On December 22, 2023, the [NAME] submitted an inquiry to the [NAME] in respect of [NAME] born May 1, 1961, with an alias of [NAME] born January 7, 1959. The [NAME] sought, inter alia , to confirm the Applicant’s refugee claim and any known immigration history. [ 9 ] The [NAME] – Home Office Request Proforma Response dated December 28, 2023, indicates that: (i) the UK has no immigration history under the current name and date of birth; (ii) there is a match under the name of [NAME] (date of birth January 7, 1959), whose immigration history matched that of the Applicant including the fact that this person entered the UK in December 1999; (iii) there is a closer match under the identity of [NAME] (date of birth May 1, 1959), which person made a refugee claim in the UK and was arrested at London Heathrow Airport on April 29, 2000, trying to board a flight to Canada using a fraudulent passport [the [NAME]]. [ 10 ] On redetermination of the Applicant’s eligibility under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act , the Officer considered the Applicant’s immigration history outside of Canada including the information from the [NAME], as well as the Applicant’s failure to provide his own immigration documentation. The Officer was satisfied that the Applicant was the same individual as “[NAME]” who made a refugee claim in the UK rendering him ineligible for referral to the [NAME] pursuant to paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act . [ 11 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision.

III. Issue [ 12 ] The Applicant has raised issues going to both the reasonableness and fairness of the Decision. [ 13 ] Reasonableness review is a deferential but nevertheless robust review that considers both the outcome and rationale of the decision with an eye to the hallmarks of public power which require that it be transparent, intelligible and justified to those to whom it applies ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 12-13, 15, 86, 95 [ Vavilov ]). The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100). [ 14 ] Issues of procedural fairness are subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that those affected by a decision understood the case they had to meet and had the opportunity to respond to it before an impartial decision maker ( [NAME] Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 41 [ [NAME] ]).

IV. Analysis A. The Decision is reasonable [ 15 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable for a number of reasons. [ 16 ] First, the Applicant argues that the Officer erred in applying a balance of probabilities standard to the factual determination of his past refugee claim whereas the Officer was required to apply a standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” like that applied in cases of inadmissibility. [ 17 ] The Applicant has cited no authority for this proposition, which is clearly without merit. The standard of proof in civil cases is proof on a balance of probabilities unless the words of a statute or the context dictates otherwise ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 FCA 1 at para 9). While section 33 of the Act , expressly directs that facts proving inadmissibility are to be proved on a “reasonable grounds to believe” standard, paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act provides no basis for departing from the usual standard. [ 18 ] Second, the Applicant submits that there was no evidence of a successful refugee claim on the part of the Applicant, upon which a finding of ineligibility could be based. This argument cannot succeed based on a plain reading of paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act , which refers only to a claim having been made: Ineligibility Irrecevabilité 101 (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if 101 (1) La demande est irrecevable dans les cas suivants : … … (c.1) the claimant has, before making a claim for refugee protection in Canada, made a claim for refugee protection to a country other than Canada, and the fact of its having been made has been confirmed in accordance with an agreement or arrangement entered into by Canada and that country for the purpose of facilitating information sharing to assist in the administration and enforcement of their immigration and citizenship laws; c.1) confirmation, en conformité avec un accord ou une entente conclus par le Canada et un autre pays permettant l’échange de renseignements pour l’administration et le contrôle d’application des lois de ces pays en matière de citoyenneté et d’immigration, d’une demande d’asile antérieure faite par la personne à cet autre pays avant sa demande d’asile faite au Canada; … … [ 19 ] Third, the Applicant submits that the Officer’s finding that he made a previous refugee claim under a different identity, “was not substantiated with reliable documentation” and was made without regard for the Applicant’s oral testimony and corroborating evidence. [ 20 ] The Officer’s finding of ineligibility was based on evidence that the Applicant had made a prior refugee claim as reported in the [NAME] from the UK, a country with whom Canada has an agreement to share information to assist with the administration and enforcement of immigration and citizenship laws ( [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 FC 778 at para 1). This was sufficient to trigger the effect of paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act , which effect was described in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1335 [ [NAME] ] as follows: … pursuant to s 101(1)(c.1), a finding that a claimant is ineligible to be referred to the [NAME] is dependent on only one factual determination to be made by the Minister’s Delegate. If it has been confirmed by one of the other countries with whom Canada has entered into an information sharing agreement that the claimant has previously made a claim for refugee protection in that country, then the applicant must be found to be ineligible. There is no discretion ( [NAME] at para 52). [ 21 ] The mandatory effect of paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Act is also a complete answer to the remainder of the Applicant’s arguments that the Officer overlooked various factors in coming to the Decision such as translation errors, discrepancies in record-keeping across different countries, the frailty of memory, socio-political conditions in India and the Applicant’s detailed account of his political and personal persecution in India. [ 22 ] As for the suggestion that the Officer failed to consider the Applicant’s evidence, the Applicant’s own Basis of Claim admits that he left India in 1999 and went to England with the help of an agent where he asked for refugee protection but was denied. B. The Applicant was not denied procedural fairness [ 23 ] The Applicant submits that he was denied an adequate opportunity to respond to discrepancies identified by the Officer and the Officer instead relied on assumptions rather than engaging with the Applicant and his narrative. This submission is not supported by the record. [ 24 ] Both before the interview and at its conclusion, the Applicant was instructed to provide documentation to confirm his identity and UK immigration history; however, the only document he produced was a copy of a travel document that showed his use of a different spelling of his name. At his interview, the Applicant claimed he could not remember any details regarding his immigration history to the UK. [ 25 ] I am therefore satisfied that the record shows that the Applicant was aware of the case he had to meet and had a fair opportunity to respond to it ( [NAME] at para 41).

V. Conclusion [ 26 ] As the Applicant has not met his onus of showing a basis for finding that the Decision is unreasonable or that he was denied procedural fairness, this application is dismissed. [ 27 ] No question of general importance was raised by either party. I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-23358-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "Allyson Whyte Nowak" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-23358-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY WAY OF ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 25, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitor Surrey, British Columbia FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT