The Federal Court has set aside a refusal of a Convention Refugee Abroad permanent residence application after finding the officer did not address evidence and arguments about whether the applicant had a refugee durable solution in Ethiopia. In Kidane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1296, Justice Darren R. Thorne ordered a new decision by a different officer and awarded the applicant $1,000 in costs.
Case involved a third refusal of the same application
The applicant is an Eritrean national living in Ethiopia after fleeing alleged abuse and torture at an Eritrean military training camp. He married an Ethiopian national before applying for permanent residence in Canada as a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad class.
The March 29, 2025 refusal was the third negative decision on the application. Following each of the first two refusals, the applicant sought judicial review, and the Minister agreed to settle the matters, resulting in the application being returned to the visa office for redetermination.
In the third decision, the officer found that the applicant had found a durable solution in Ethiopia because he had married an Ethiopian national and the couple had lived there together as a family.
Court found the officer did not address contrary evidence
The applicant argued that the officer had not considered his evidence and submissions on why remaining in Ethiopia did not provide a durable solution. Three days before the hearing, the respondent conceded that the refusal was unreasonable and agreed that it should be sent back for another decision.
Justice Thorne agreed that the decision was clearly unreasonable. The Court found that the officer disregarded the applicant’s submissions and evidence and gave no discernable rationale for concluding that marriage to an Ethiopian citizen was enough to establish a durable solution in Ethiopia.
The reasons did not account for relevant and countervailing evidence and lacked the justification, intelligibility and transparency needed to explain the outcome, the Court held.
New decision ordered, but no substituted approval
The applicant asked the Court to make a substituted decision that would effectively grant the permanent residence application. Justice Thorne declined that remedy, describing it as exceptional and generally available only where the evidence can lead to one result and sending the matter back would serve no purpose.
The Court found that the application still required factual determinations by an officer and that it was not certain there was only one possible outcome. It also declined to impose a timeline for the forthcoming decision.
The judicial review application was granted, the March 29, 2025 decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
Court awards $1,000 in costs
Justice Thorne awarded the applicant lump-sum costs of $1,000, payable forthwith. Although costs are generally not awarded in immigration judicial review proceedings without special reasons, the Court found special circumstances in this case.
The Court pointed to the repeated settlements requiring the applicant to continue litigating at personal expense, as well as the respondent’s late concession on a decision whose reasons the Court found clearly unreasonable. No question of general importance was certified.
Decision details
The decision is Kidane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1296. It was issued in Toronto, Ontario, on October 23, 2026, by the Honourable Justice Darren R. Thorne, in Court file IMM-10290-25.
Source: Federal Court Decisions