The Federal Court has set aside the refusal of Yordanos Tesfai Gebretsadik’s refugee resettlement application, finding that several of the immigration officer’s findings were speculative, vague or unsupported. The Court granted judicial review and ordered a new decision by a different officer.
Application and refusal under review
In Gebretsadik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1170, decided September 16, 2026, Mr. Justice Brouwer reviewed the refusal of Ms. Gebretsadik’s application to be resettled to Canada with her common-law partner, Amanuel Yemane Zerai, and their child.
Ms. Gebretsadik, a refugee from Eritrea, applied in 2021 under the Convention refugees abroad class and the Humanitarian-protected persons abroad designated class through a private sponsorship. She had been recognized as a refugee in Ethiopia. The application continued to be processed after the family moved to Uganda in 2024.
An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer interviewed Ms. Gebretsadik and Mr. Zerai in Kampala on October 29, 2024. The Court identified the decision under review as the December 11, 2024 refusal. The officer accepted Ms. Gebretsadik’s account of her history and reasons for leaving Eritrea, but did not accept evidence concerning Mr. Zerai as her dependent partner.
Court applied reasonableness review
The Court reviewed the officer’s findings on the reasonableness standard. Justice Brouwer stated that a reasonable decision must be transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the relevant law and facts. Reasons that do not reveal a rational chain of analysis may be set aside.
Ms. Gebretsadik argued that the officer relied on speculation, made vague and unsupported factual findings, failed to consider all grounds of persecution supported by the evidence, and did not assess whether the family qualified under the Country of Asylum class. She also argued that some concerns were raised without giving her and Mr. Zerai an opportunity to respond.
The Minister maintained that the officer’s findings were fairly made and deserved deference. The Court agreed with Ms. Gebretsadik that several findings lacked rational justification.
Findings about the relationship lacked justification
The officer questioned why the couple was not married, despite it being undisputed that they were common-law partners who lived together and had a child. The couple said financial barriers prevented marriage. The officer found that explanation was "somewhat contradicted" by Mr. Zerai’s travel and a large ring worn by Ms. Gebretsadik.
Justice Brouwer found this analysis unreasonable. The Court said the finding that their testimony was "somewhat" contradicted was unintelligible and appeared to rest on conjecture about the ring’s value and an unsupported assumption about how the couple would choose to spend money.
The Court emphasized that credibility findings in refugee matters must be clear and unmistakable and cannot be based simply on conjecture or subjective views about plausible behaviour.
Concerns about status, travel and business were speculative
The officer was concerned that Mr. Zerai had not obtained refugee status in Ethiopia or Uganda, although the Court noted such status was not required for the application. The refusal reasons stated that the officer was not satisfied there was no "ulterior motive or reason" for his lack of status, without explaining what that motive might be or why it mattered to the application.
The officer also doubted that Mr. Zerai’s import business involving traditional clothes and jewellery justified his travel, but gave no basis for finding that explanation unlikely. In addition, the officer was not satisfied with Mr. Zerai’s account that his goods were sold at JB Mall and other small shops in Kampala because he did not name the smaller shops.
The Court noted that the officer’s own notes indicated no further questions were asked to explore Mr. Zerai’s knowledge of the shops. The officer also did not explain why naming them was relevant to, or determinative of, Ms. Gebretsadik’s refugee resettlement application. Justice Brouwer could not discern a rational chain of analysis in these findings.
Visa-renewal concern was not put to the applicants
The officer also noted Ms. Gebretsadik’s statement that Mr. Zerai had previously left Uganda to renew his visitor visa and for an additional reason. The officer commented that renewal was possible within Uganda.
Justice Brouwer found that this appeared to be a negative credibility concern, but was not expressed clearly. If it was intended as a credibility finding, the Court held that it was procedurally unfair not to put the concern directly to the applicants so that they could respond.
Refusal set aside and application remitted
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and set aside the refusal. It remitted the matter for redetermination by a different officer.
The Court did not address the applicant’s remaining arguments because the identified errors were sufficient to dispose of the judicial review. It directed that the new decision be reasonable, procedurally fair and address all legally relevant factors.
No question was certified for appeal. The decision concerns the particular refusal and does not itself decide whether Ms. Gebretsadik and her family qualify for resettlement.
Source: Federal Court Decisions