Background
Eskandar Mizi, a Bangladeshi citizen, sought a pre-removal risk assessment after becoming subject to removal from Canada. He claimed that his political activity and support for the Krishak Sramik Janata League exposed him to persecution or other serious harm from the governing Awami League, police, and the Rapid Action Battalion if he returned to Bangladesh.
A senior immigration officer accepted that Mizi’s claim was connected to political opinion but concluded that the evidence did not objectively establish that persecutors had taken a specific interest in him or would continue targeting him. The officer therefore found that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Mizi applied for judicial review.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted judicial review, holding that the officer’s decision was unreasonable. The officer unjustifiably demanded or discounted corroborating evidence despite raising no reason to doubt Mizi’s sworn account. The officer also failed to assess a local party official’s letter for what it established—Mizi’s membership history and vice-presidential position—and instead focused on details the letter did not contain.
The Court likewise found the treatment of evidence from Mizi’s wife and Bangladeshi lawyer unreasonable. The officer did not explain why omitted details about an alleged attack, medical treatment, requests for protection, or the frequency of family communications were necessary. The officer also expected the lawyer to supply first-hand details of incidents he had not witnessed while failing to meaningfully consider his direct evidence about communications with police concerning Mizi. These errors were central to the risk assessment, so the Court returned the matter for redetermination by a different immigration officer.
Key Takeaways
- Absent a valid reason to doubt sworn evidence, a decision-maker cannot unreasonably require additional corroboration.
- Corroborating documents must be assessed for the relevant information they contain, not discounted merely because they omit further details the officer would have preferred.
- A first pre-removal risk assessment requires especially careful, intelligible justification because no earlier risk assessment has occurred and the consequences may be severe.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces limits on immigration officers’ findings that protection evidence is “insufficient.” Officers must explain why missing details matter and must meaningfully engage with evidence capable of supporting the claimant’s account.
The ruling did not determine that Mizi qualifies for refugee protection. It required a new officer to reassess his claimed risk on the existing legal framework without relying on the unreasonable evidentiary findings identified by the Court.