Abdulaziz Abdullah Al Fares et al. v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2020 FC 373)

Introduction

The case concerns a judicial review application under s. 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) by Abdulaziz Al Fares, his wife, and their son, challenging a decision by a Migration Officer (Officer) that denied their application for permanent residence in Canada. The officer found their claims not credible, leading to the rejection of their refugee status application.

Background

• The applicants are Syrian nationals living in Lebanon since 2013 and are registered as refugees with the UNHCR.
• The Principal Applicant (Abdulaziz Al Fares) claimed to have served in the Syrian Army from 2010 to 2013, mostly in an administrative role.
• He alleged that in 2013, he was ordered to fire on civilians in Tell Abyad but refused. He was beaten, imprisoned, and later escaped with the help of a guard.
• He fled to Lebanon using a fake passport, was detained, but was bailed out by his brother.
• The family applied for Canadian permanent residence as Convention refugees abroad or humanitarian-protected persons.
• A sponsorship application was approved, and the Principal Applicant was interviewed in Beirut, Lebanon.

Decision Under Review

The Officer rejected the application based on credibility concerns. Key findings included:

• The Principal Applicant’s testimony was inconsistent regarding his military training.
• He initially stated that he received tank training, then later claimed he did not.
• He could not provide documentation to support his military service.
• The Officer doubted the plausibility of an untrained soldier being ordered to operate a tank.
• Given these contradictions, the Officer was not satisfied that the Principal Applicant was eligible and not inadmissible under IRPA.

Key Issues in Judicial Review

1. Did the Officer breach procedural fairness?
2. Were the Officer’s credibility findings reasonable?
3. Did the Officer consider the applicant’s refugee profile?
4. Did the Officer properly assess inadmissibility based on alleged false testimony?
5. Should costs be awarded to the applicants?

Analysis & Court Findings

1. Credibility Concerns:
   • The court upheld the Officer’s finding that the Principal Applicant’s statements were contradictory regarding his military training.
   • The Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes were found reliable.
   • The court found no basis to overturn the credibility findings.
2. Failure to Maintain an Accurate Record:
   • The applicants argued that the Officer failed to keep a proper record of the interview.
   • The court found no evidence that the interview notes were incomplete or inaccurate.
3. Speculation Regarding Syrian Military Practices:
   • The applicants argued that the Officer speculated about the Syrian military’s use of untrained soldiers.
   • The court found that the Officer’s reasoning was reasonable given the lack of supporting evidence.
4. Failure to Consider Risk of Persecution:
   • The applicants argued that, even if the Officer doubted the Principal Applicant’s claim of defying orders, they still faced risk as Syrian deserters.
   • The court found that the Officer’s credibility concerns were sufficient to dismiss the application without further risk assessment.
5. Admissibility Finding:
   • The applicants argued that the Officer’s wording about inadmissibility was unclear.
   • The court ruled that the Officer properly assessed the case, and the rejection was justified.
6. Costs:
   • The applicants sought legal costs due to alleged unfair treatment.
   • The court denied the request, ruling that no special factors justified awarding costs.

Final Judgment

• Application dismissed.
• No costs awarded.
• No question certified for appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Inconsistencies in testimony can significantly impact credibility assessments in refugee applications.
• Officers have broad discretion in evaluating credibility, and their findings will be upheld unless shown to be unreasonable.
• Applicants must provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, including documentation when possible.
• Procedural fairness challenges require clear evidence that an officer’s conduct deprived an applicant of a fair hearing.
• Risk assessment is secondary to admissibility; if an applicant is found inadmissible, officers do not have to consider refugee risk.

The 2025 FC 429 case has some key parallels with the 2020 FC 373 case, but they diverge in outcome. Here’s how they align and differ:

Similarities Between the Two Cases

1. Immigration Decision Under Review:
   • In 2020 FC 373, the applicants sought judicial review of a refugee status denial due to credibility concerns.
   • In 2025 FC 429, the applicant sought judicial review of a work permit refusal due to allegations of misrepresentation.
   • In both cases, the judicial review focused on the reasonableness of the officer’s decision.
2. Credibility Findings & Evidence Evaluation:
   • In 2020 FC 373, the officer found contradictions in the applicant’s statements about military training, leading to credibility concerns.
   • In 2025 FC 429, the officer doubted the authenticity of the applicant’s work experience due to a conflicting phone verification.
   • Both officers prioritized certain pieces of evidence over others (oral interview statements over documentation in 2020 FC 373 and phone verification over employer documents in 2025 FC 429).
3. Global Case Management System (GCMS) Notes:
   • In both cases, the officer’s GCMS notes were relied upon heavily to justify the decision.
   • The courts in both cases examined whether the officers had properly documented the credibility concerns.
4. Procedural Fairness Allegations:
   • In both cases, the applicants argued that procedural fairness was breached:
     • In 2020 FC 373, the applicants claimed the officer failed to properly record the interview and ignored key aspects of their refugee claim.
     • In 2025 FC 429, the applicant claimed the officer failed to consider all submitted documents and unjustifiably prioritized the phone verification.
5. Use of the Vavilov Framework:
   • Both cases applied the Vavilov standard for reasonableness, assessing whether the officer’s decision was transparent, justified, and intelligible.

Key Differences Between the Two Cases

1. Outcome of the Judicial Review:
   • 2020 FC 373: The court dismissed the application, upholding the officer’s decision.
   • 2025 FC 429: The court granted the judicial review, finding the officer’s decision unreasonable.
2. Weight Given to Contradictions:
   • In 2020 FC 373, the contradictions in military training were deemed significant enough to invalidate the applicant’s credibility.
   • In 2025 FC 429, the contradictions regarding employment verification were not considered strong enough to justify rejecting the application.
3. Consideration of Documentary Evidence:
   • In 2020 FC 373, the officer’s skepticism over the lack of military service documents was upheld as reasonable.
   • In 2025 FC 429, the officer’s rejection of salary statements and employer affidavits was deemed unreasonable.
4. Treatment of Misrepresentation:
   • 2020 FC 373: The officer found the applicant’s inconsistencies in testimony to be central in determining inadmissibility.
   • 2025 FC 429: The officer found misrepresentation but failed to justify why the documentary evidence was insufficient, leading to the decision being overturned.

Conclusion

• Both cases revolve around credibility findings and the officer’s discretion in weighing evidence.
• However, the court upheld the officer’s skepticism in 2020 FC 373 but overturned the officer’s decision in 2025 FC 429 due to insufficient reasoning.
• The 2025 FC 429 case emphasizes that officers must engage holistically with all evidence and not arbitrarily prioritize one piece of evidence over others.

If you are dealing with credibility-based refusals, 2025 FC 429 could be used to argue that all evidence must be properly considered—unlike the approach taken in 2020 FC 373, where the applicant’s contradictions were enough to dismiss the claim.