Abdelrahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1141 : Federal Court Reviews TRP Refusal After Officer Focused on Refugee Resettlement Instead of Applicant’s Circumstances

The Federal Court reviewed the second refusal of Mahdi Suliman Noureldin Abdelrahman’s application for a temporary resident permit under subsection 24(1) of the IRPA. Mr. Abdelrahman, a Sudanese citizen living in Israel, sought a TRP because he feared persecution and torture if returned to Sudan. The Court granted judicial review because the tribunal record was incomplete, the interview was unfair, and the officer focused on privately sponsored refugee resettlement instead of determining whether his circumstances justified a TRP.

Key Principle

A TRP decision must meaningfully assess whether the applicant’s individual circumstances justify relief under subsection 24(1) of the IRPA. An officer cannot substitute the existence of another possible immigration pathway for the required substantive assessment, particularly where the applicant does not understand that alternative process. The decision must also address material country-condition evidence and rest on a record sufficient for meaningful judicial review.

Background

Mr. Abdelrahman fled Sudan in 2010 after alleged torture and persecution by militia who believed he opposed the government. He eventually settled in Israel, where he experienced immigration detention and later sought asylum.

His first TRP refusal had already been set aside by the Federal Court because the officer’s reasons were insufficient. On redetermination, another officer interviewed him and acknowledged that he had compelling reasons to fear returning to Sudan and to seek a durable solution.

The officer nevertheless refused the TRP, reasoning that Mr. Abdelrahman had not seriously pursued resettlement as a privately sponsored refugee and describing his situation in Israel as stable because he could work, renew his visa, and had experienced no recent problems with Israeli authorities.

Court Findings

• Incomplete Tribunal Record Prevented Meaningful Review

The certified tribunal record initially omitted 50 pages and, even after amendment, remained incomplete because three news articles submitted by the applicant were missing. The officer claimed to have considered them online, but the Court could not verify their contents or assess their role. Given their apparent relevance to Sudanese asylum seekers in Israel and return risks, the missing evidence materially impaired judicial review.

• Interview About Refugee Resettlement Was Unfair

Mr. Abdelrahman had only a Grade 7 education and did not speak or read English. His interview responses demonstrated that he did not understand the distinction between a TRP and privately sponsored refugee resettlement. The Court found it unfair to expect him to understand Canada’s refugee system and fault him for failing to seriously pursue a process he did not comprehend.

• Officer Failed to Conduct the Required TRP Assessment

The reasons did not clarify whether the TRP was refused because Mr. Abdelrahman’s circumstances were insufficiently compelling or simply because another immigration option might exist. The officer acknowledged his compelling fear of returning to Sudan but did not meaningfully balance that finding against his circumstances in Israel or the country-condition evidence. The Court found no substantive analysis demonstrating why a TRP was not justified.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the April 4, 2019 decision, and remitted the matter to a different visa officer. Mr. Abdelrahman was to be permitted to resubmit the missing articles. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Abdelrahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1141 (CanLII)