Federal Court Sets Aside Overseas Refugee Refusal: Interview Alone Was Not Enough on “Durable Solution”

On September 11, 2026, the Federal Court granted judicial review in Anenya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1149. Madam Justice Aylen set aside a visa officer’s refusal of a privately sponsored overseas refugee application and sent the matter back for redetermination by a different officer. Bjorn Harsanyi, K.C., and the team at Stewart Sharma Harsanyi represented the applicant.

The decision is a useful reminder that putting a concern to an unrepresented applicant during an interview does not always satisfy procedural fairness—especially where the applicant is a UNHCR-recognized refugee, privately sponsored by a Canadian Group of Five, and the concern is determinative.

The application and the refusal

The applicant, Wahzit Maru Anenya, is an Eritrean citizen who fled Eritrea in 2019 to avoid mandatory military conscription. She claimed she could not return without facing imprisonment. She lives in Ethiopia as a UNHCR-registered refugee with her husband, an Ethiopian national and hotel manager. She has not applied for Ethiopian citizenship.

She applied for permanent residence in the Convention refugee abroad class or Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad class, with her husband as an accompanying dependent, through a Group of Five private sponsorship.

At interview, the officer put the concern that she appeared to have a durable solution in Ethiopia because she was married to an Ethiopian citizen and living there. The exchange was brief. The applicant said she had never seen anyone obtain citizenship, did not want to lose her Eritrean citizenship (Ethiopia does not allow dual citizenship), and confirmed she had not applied. When asked whether life seemed good, she replied that Canada would be better.

No procedural fairness letter followed. Five days later, on March 19, 2025, the officer refused the application under paragraph 139(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The reasons cited her UNHCR refugee status in Ethiopia, the opportunity to acquire Ethiopian citizenship by marriage (which she had not pursued), her husband’s employment allowing her to live as a housewife, and the absence of a refoulement risk or threat to physical security.

The judicial review

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and that she had been denied a meaningful opportunity to respond to the durable-solution concern. The Court treated procedural fairness as the determinative issue.

Justice Aylen reviewed the legal framework. Paragraph 139(1)(d) requires that the foreign national not have a reasonable prospect of a durable solution, within a reasonable period, in a country other than Canada. A durable solution is a forward-looking assessment of legal status, personal circumstances, and country conditions; it need not be perfect. The burden is on the applicant to show that their situation in the country of refuge is not a durable solution.

IRCC’s OP-5 manual describes three durable solutions: voluntary repatriation, local integration in the country of asylum, and resettlement to a third country. Local integration considers rights similar to those of citizens (freedom of movement, ability to work, schooling for children, no threat of refoulement, etc.).

The Minister argued the interview with an interpreter was sufficient: the officer put the concern and invited a response, and there was no duty to seek out further information. The Court disagreed on the facts of this case.

Why the Court found a breach of fairness

The Court accepted that an officer is not necessarily required to give a mini-lecture on the legal test during the interview itself. However, the unique circumstances called for more:

• The applicant had been privately sponsored by Canadians and was applying from abroad as a refugee.
• She was already recognized as a refugee by UNHCR.
• Neither she nor the Canadian sponsorship group was represented by counsel at the time of the interview.

These factors placed her in a vulnerable position. She was not well-positioned to give a meaningful response on the spot to a concern that would decide the application. The nature of the decision required more stringent procedural protections. A post-interview procedural fairness letter should have been sent so she could address the issue with further evidence and written submissions.

Because that opportunity was not given, the application for judicial review was granted. The officer’s decision was set aside and remitted to a different officer. Before any new decision, the applicant must be given a chance to file further evidence and written submissions on whether she has a durable solution in Ethiopia. No question was certified.

Practical takeaways

This case does not create a rigid rule that every overseas refugee interview must be followed by a PFL. It does confirm that context matters. Where an applicant is unrepresented, already recognized as a refugee, and privately sponsored, an on-the-spot exchange about citizenship and “life seems good” may not be enough when the officer later relies on local integration and the unused opportunity to naturalize.

For sponsors and applicants, the decision underscores the value of counsel even at the overseas processing stage. A durable-solution concern often turns on country-specific legal and practical realities (citizenship rules, dual-nationality consequences, actual access to rights, documentation, and integration prospects). Those points are difficult to develop fully in a short interview.

For officers, the judgment is a reminder that “you had the opportunity to respond” in the refusal letter is not always a complete answer when the applicant is in a vulnerable position and the concern is central.

The matter now returns for a fresh assessment with a proper opportunity to respond. The Court’s focus remained on fairness rather than the ultimate merits of whether a durable solution exists.

Stewart Sharma Harsanyi regularly represents privately sponsored refugees and conducts Federal Court judicial reviews of overseas refusals. If you or your sponsorship group is facing a similar concern, contact the firm to discuss next steps.