Background
The Applicant, Erika Tatiana Ocampo Alarcon, challenged a decision by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that refused to reconsider her protection claim’s eligibility for referral to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). Her claim was initially deemed ineligible due to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). Ms. Alarcon asserted an exemption from the STCA, claiming to have a common-law partner in Canada, but a CBSA Officer disbelieved her status based on perceived contradictions in documentation.
Following this initial decision, Ms. Alarcon sought reconsideration, providing new evidence including a sworn statutory declaration, photographs, and proof of pregnancy, all supporting her common-law relationship. Crucially, the Officer declined to consider this new evidence. However, the same Officer, on their own initiative, did reconsider other evidence that led to a change in her removal order from a Departure Order to an Exclusion Order, a change unfavorable to the Applicant.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the Officer’s decision to be unreasonable. Justice Battista concluded that the decision exhibited both incoherence, as per the principles established in *Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov*, and arbitrariness, as referenced in *Bouchard v Canada (Attorney General)*. The unreasonableness stemmed from the Officer’s selective approach to reconsideration: they chose to revisit aspects of the ineligibility decision that resulted in a negative outcome for Ms. Alarcon (changing her removal order) but refused to consider new, potentially beneficial evidence regarding her common-law partnership.
This selective reconsideration created an illogical and inconsistent administrative process. The Court emphasized that a decision-maker cannot reasonably pick and choose which parts of a decision to reconsider, especially when new, relevant evidence is presented that could alter the initial finding. By failing to engage with the evidence supporting the common-law exemption while simultaneously acting on other evidence, the Officer’s decision lacked the necessary rational connection and justification required for administrative decisions. The Court set aside the decision and remitted the matter for redetermination by a different Officer to ensure a fair and coherent reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
- Administrative decision-makers must act consistently and coherently when reconsidering decisions, especially when new evidence is presented.
- Selective reconsideration, where an officer chooses to revisit only aspects unfavorable to an applicant while ignoring potentially beneficial evidence, can render a decision unreasonable and arbitrary.
- The principles of reasonableness and procedural fairness, as articulated in *Vavilov*, require a decision to be justifiable, intelligible, and transparent, particularly in immigration matters involving significant rights.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces critical principles of administrative law in Canada, particularly concerning the duties of government officers when exercising discretionary powers, such as reconsidering immigration decisions. It serves as an important reminder that administrative bodies cannot engage in “cherry-picking” evidence or issues during reconsideration. The ruling underscores that fairness demands a holistic and unbiased review, especially when new information is introduced that could materially affect an applicant’s rights or status.
For legal practitioners, *Alarcon* highlights the necessity of challenging administrative decisions that demonstrate a lack of coherence or arbitrariness, particularly in complex areas like the Safe Third Country Agreement exemptions, ensuring that processes are not just formally correct but substantively just.