In PR Truthfulness, the Federal Court dismissed a challenge to IRCC’s refusal of an Afghan national’s permanent residence application under a temporary Afghan resettlement public policy. Justice Norris found that the officer’s conclusion that the applicant had not answered truthfully under subsection 16(1) of the IRPA was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.
Federal Court decision and immigration context
In Zai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1151, released September 14, 2026, Mr. Justice Norris considered an application for judicial review of an IRCC migration officer’s refusal of permanent residence. The Federal Court Decisions judgment concerned an Afghan citizen who had applied in July 2021 with his immediate family under the temporary public policy for the resettlement of Afghan nationals with a significant and/or enduring relationship to Canada.
The applicant had worked as an interpreter for the Canadian Armed Forces in Kandahar from January 2007 to January 2009. Under the temporary public policy, eligible individuals and family members could seek a permanent resident visa in the Convention Refugee Abroad Class. Although applicants were exempt from several usual selection requirements, an officer still had to be satisfied that they met the requirements of the IRPA, including that they were not inadmissible.
IRCC refused the application over inconsistent information
IRCC refused the application on April 9, 2024. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant met the IRPA requirements or that he was not inadmissible. The refusal centred on the officer’s finding that the applicant had not truthfully answered questions, as required by subsection 16(1) of the IRPA.
The first Schedule A Background/Declaration form, signed in July 2021, stated that the applicant had never been detained. It also described employment with the Orion Group from January 2009 to January 2015, followed by business activity and studies. In an updated Schedule A submitted in July 2022, the applicant disclosed that he had been detained in Afghanistan from January to October 2013 and added employment as an interpreter for the US Army, revised dates for work with the Orion Group, and further information about his businesses.
After an interview, the officer issued a procedural fairness letter identifying concerns about the applicant’s truthfulness and the discrepancies in his information. The applicant acknowledged mistakes and explained, among other things, that the first form had been completed at an internet café and that he did not understand that certain information had to be included. The officer was not persuaded by those explanations.
Security inadmissibility concerns had also been raised during processing. However, the officer did not need to decide that issue because the finding concerning truthfulness was sufficient to refuse the application.
Court rejects procedural fairness and bias arguments
The applicant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. His principal fairness argument was that the officer was biased, based on the interview’s conduct, comments recorded in the interview notes, an alleged exchange about interpretation, and the officer’s note that the applicant arrived two hours late.
Justice Norris held that the allegations did not meet the high threshold for establishing either actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court noted that the applicant did not raise concerns about the officer’s attitude or translation until after learning of the negative decision, nearly two years after the interview, despite corresponding with IRCC repeatedly in the interim.
The Court found that, even accepting the applicant’s account at its highest, the officer’s alleged impatience did not demonstrate bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court also found no basis to infer that the officer used the applicant’s lateness against him. The interview and the subsequent procedural fairness letter gave the applicant sufficient notice of the concerns about the truthfulness of his application information and a fair opportunity to respond.
Reasonableness review of the truthfulness finding
The parties agreed that the merits of the officer’s decision were reviewable for reasonableness. The Court assessed whether the decision was justified, intelligible and transparent in light of the factual and legal constraints on the officer.
Justice Norris found that the key issues were why information was omitted from the first Schedule A form, why new information appeared in the second form, and why further information about companies the applicant had operated was provided at the interview. The Court held that it was open to the officer to find the applicant’s explanations unpersuasive and to remain unsatisfied that he had been truthful.
The applicant also argued that the officer did not address humanitarian and compassionate circumstances raised while the file was pending, including the circumstances facing him and his family in Pakistan. The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether this was a reviewable error because the reasonable subsection 16(1) finding was a legally sufficient basis for refusal.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. No question of general importance was stated for certification.
The decision turns on the particular record before the officer, including contradictory and incomplete information in the applicant’s forms and interview. It confirms, in this case, that a reasonable finding of non-compliance with subsection 16(1) of the IRPA can support refusal of a permanent residence application.
Source: Federal Court Decisions