A Selection of Cases
We Have Worked Hard to Win.

Mîra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 603
Federal Court · Mr. Justice McHaffie · 6 May 2026 · Docket IMM-21730-24

Our client is a Romanian expert accountant. She says she was prosecuted and convicted in her absence on corruption charges after refusing to alter her expert reports to suit prosecutors at Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate. She and her partner claimed refugee protection in Canada in 2018.

How the exclusion arose

The Minister raised exclusion under Article 1F(b) in 2020, then withdrew that intervention in October 2023 after reviewing the evidence. The Refugee Protection Division went on to find our client generally credible and not excluded.

On appeal the Refugee Appeal Division raised exclusion on its own motion, gave notice, and excluded her. The Minister did not intervene. So the finding under review was one the Minister had already abandoned.

What the Court held

The application for judicial review was allowed and the decision set aside for both applicants, on two grounds.

The new evidence. The Division refused fresh evidence of corruption inside the prosecuting authority as irrelevant. The Court found it had mischaracterised the argument and had not engaged with the material at all, which included reporting that linked the prosecutor in our client’s case to indicted officials said to hold influence over prosecutors.

The exclusion finding. The Division reasoned that because Romania is a country where the rule of law prevails, a charge and conviction could be relied on. It cited Arevalo Pineda for that, but not the passages of the same decision requiring an objective assessment of all the claimant’s evidence and satisfaction that the issuing authority itself respects the rule of law. The Court held that reliance on jurisprudence stripped of its qualifying context does not meet the standard, and noted that no assessment of the issuing authority was ever carried out.

On the authority of Qazi, where a claimant alleges the charges are fabricated and has been found credible, the existence of a warrant alone is not enough. The Division had to go further and did not.

Why it was hard

Displacing an Article 1F(b) exclusion is difficult, and considerably harder when the conviction comes from a European Union member state. The presumption that a charge from such a state can be taken at face value is precisely what had to be dislodged, and it was dislodged on the record rather than on assertion.

Outcome

Judicial review allowed. The decision was set aside for both applicants and the appeal remitted to a differently constituted panel. That is the relief sought on a judicial review: the exclusion finding no longer stands and the appeal is heard again before a fresh panel.

Counsel: Javairia (Jia) Junaid, Lexaltico LLP

Read the decision on CanLII · Federal Court immigration work · Refugee Appeal Division appeals · Judicial review