Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Officer's decision was unreasonable and unjustified because it relied on uncited open‑source evidence not in the record, misapplied the Convention refugee test by requiring forcible recruitment to be 'common' instead of assessing whether there was a serious possibility of persecution, and failed to analyze the applicant's uncontradicted allegation of past forcible recruitment; therefore the decision is set aside and the matter remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review granted; impugned decision set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different decision maker.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review is granted.
  • Decision dated November 8, 2024 refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence is set aside.
  • Matter is remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination.
  • No question is certified for certification.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mohamed Ahmed Sheikh

Applicant Counsel: Rachael J. Anderson

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Alexander Brooker

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review of Immigration/refugee Decision / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued the decision lacked justification and transparency because the Officer relied on uncited open‑source country information not in the record, misapplied the Convention refugee standard by treating forcible recruitment as requiring to be 'common' rather than a serious possibility, and failed to analyze the applicant's central allegation of past forcible recruitment by Al‑Shabaab.
Respondent
The respondent submitted that the determinative issue was credibility; the Court found no support for that submission because the decision contained no adverse credibility findings nor identified credibility concerns.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 95

    Failure to produce or cite documentary evidence relied upon by the decision-maker results in a failure of justification and transparency

  2. 02

    Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 127-128

    Decision-makers must analyze central allegations of past persecution and state reasons when dismissing them

  3. 03

    Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 SCR 593 at para 120

    The threshold for Convention refugee status is a serious possibility of persecution, not a requirement that the method of persecution be 'common'

  4. 04

    Brown v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1943 at para 41

    It is essential for accuracy, efficiency, and fairness that the Court and the parties know precisely the scope and extent of the record on judicial review

  5. 05

    Sheikh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 618

    Reliance on uncited open‑source evidence not produced in the record undermines transparency and justification

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Officer's decision was unreasonable and unjustified because it relied on uncited open‑source evidence not in the record, misapplied the Convention refugee test by requiring forcible recruitment to be 'common' instead of assessing whether there was a serious possibility of persecution, and failed to analyze the applicant's uncontradicted allegation of past forcible recruitment; therefore the decision is set aside and the matter remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination.

Obiter and limits

  • The respondent's assertion that credibility was the determinative issue lacked support because the decision contains no adverse credibility findings or identified credibility concerns.
  • Consent to determination of the application on written representations was accepted and the matter could be decided without an oral hearing.
  • There is no question for certification and no order as to costs.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review granted; impugned decision set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different decision maker.

  • Application for judicial review is granted.
  • Decision dated November 8, 2024 refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence is set aside.
  • Matter is remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination.
  • No question is certified for certification.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 13 May 2026

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 13 May 2026

2026 FC 618

Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2026-05-13 Neutral citation 2026 FC 618 File numbers IMM-21967-24 Decision Content Date: 20260513 Docket: IMM-21967-24 Citation: 2026 FC 618 Toronto, Ontario, May 13, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista BETWEEN:

MOHAMED AHMED SHEIKH Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND JUDGMENT UPON considering the Applicant’s application for judicial review of the decision dated November 8, 2024 to refuse his application for Canadian permanent residence as a member of the Convention Refugees Abroad Class or Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad Class; AND UPON noting the parties’ consent to the determination of this application for judicial review in writing; AND UPON finding no support for the submission from counsel for the Respondent that “the determinative issue was credibility” for the Officer who refused the application, given that the decision describes no adverse findings of credibility, and does not identify any credibility concerns; AND UPON finding that the decision was based upon the Officer’s assessment of uncited “open source” documentary evidence, allegedly describing country conditions, which was not produced in the material filed for this application for judicial review, including the Certified Tribunal Record; AND UPON agreeing with Justice Nicholas McHaffie that “[i]t is essential for accuracy, efficiency, and fairness that the Court and the parties know precisely the scope and extent of the record on the application for judicial review, including the contents of the documents being relied on” (Brown v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1943 at para 41); AND UPON finding that the failure to produce or even cite

documentary evidence upon which the decision was based results in a failure of justification and transparency, which is sufficient in itself to allow this application for judicial review (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 95); AND UPON FURTHER FINDING that the Officer unreasonably applied the test for Convention refugee status by basing the decision on a finding that forcible recruitment is not a “common” method for recruitment by Al-Shabaab, given that pursuant to the Convention refugee test the threshold of risk requires only a serious possibility of persecution (See Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1995 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1995] 3 SCR 593, at para 120; Gomez Dominguez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1098 at paras 27-29); AND UPON FURTHER FINDING that the Officer erred by failing to analyze the Applicant’s allegation of his past personal experience of forcible recruitment by Al Shabaab, which was a central argument supporting the application, and which was not doubted by the Officer (Vavilov, at paras 127-128). JUDGMENT in IMM-21967-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted, the decision rendered on the Applicant’s application for Canadian permanent residence as a member of the Convention Refugees Abroad Class or Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad Class is set aside, and the matter is remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "Michael Battista" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-21967-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED AHMED SHEIKH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION UPON JOINT REQUEST FROM THE PARTIES, MATTER CONSIDERED SOLEY ON WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR AN ORAL HEARING AT TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONs and judgment: BATTISTA J. DATED: MAY 13, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Rachael J. Anderson For The Applicant Alexander Brooker For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: RJA Law Barrister and Solicitor Edmonton, Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta For The Respondent

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

Case cited

Brown v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1943

Case cited

Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 SCR 593

Case cited

Gomez Dominguez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1098

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.