Godday v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1360 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Overlooked Evidence of De Facto Statelessness

The Federal Court reviewed Joseph Dadzie Godday’s H&C refusal. He had lived in Canada since arriving as a stowaway in 2003 and argued he could not return without Ivorian identity or travel documents. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer overlooked central evidence explaining why further attempts were unlikely to succeed.

Key Principle

An H&C officer must meaningfully assess material evidence bearing on de facto statelessness. Where an applicant lacks essential identifying information needed to search for birth records or obtain travel documents, an officer cannot reasonably conclude that further avenues remain available without explaining how they could realistically be pursued.

Background

The applicant’s H&C application had undergone multiple redeterminations. The officer accepted his difficulty obtaining Ivorian documents and gave some positive weight to possible de facto statelessness, but concluded he had not exhausted all avenues, including hiring someone or contacting offices and churches to search for his birth record.

Court Findings

• Critical Identity Evidence Was Overlooked

The applicant swore that he did not know his exact date or place of birth, the correct spelling of his or his parents’ names, or even the order of his three names. He also did not know whether his birth had ever been registered. The Court found this evidence went to the core of whether any record search was realistically possible.

• Suggested Record Searches Were Illogical

The officer proposed that the applicant could hire someone in Côte d’Ivoire or contact municipal offices and churches directly. The Court found this illogical because he lacked the identifying details necessary for a meaningful search. Without the basic information needed to locate a record, the suggested avenues amounted to a futile exercise.

• Officer Failed to Assess the Affidavit Evidence

Although the officer summarized the applicant’s conversation with the Honorary Consul, the reasons did not engage with key portions of his 2018 and 2022 affidavits concerning his uncertain identity. This omission created a critical gap between the evidence and the conclusion that further avenues remained available.

• CBSA’s Unsuccessful Efforts Were Ignored

The record showed that CBSA had previously been unable to obtain an Ivorian travel document and later could not confirm the applicant as an Ivorian national. This evidence supported his position that practical avenues for establishing identity or nationality had already failed, yet the officer did not address it.

• Positive Weight Did Not Cure the Defective Analysis

The officer stated that possible de facto statelessness deserved positive weight. The Court held that assigning some positive weight was insufficient where the underlying analysis failed to grapple with decisive evidence. Proper consideration of the missing identity information could have materially changed the H&C assessment.

• Other Issues Did Not Need Determination

Because the errors concerning de facto statelessness were sufficient to set aside the refusal, the Court did not address the applicant’s remaining grounds. It also rejected his request for costs because the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for special reasons in immigration proceedings.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and remitted the matter to another officer for redetermination. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Godday v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1360 (CanLII)