Jordanian national challenged finding that he had internal movement alternatives
In a refugee protection application assailing findings that the applicant had viable internal flight alternatives (IFA), Canada’s Federal Court ruled that he failed to show a reasonable probability that the result would have been different, but for his ex-representative’s alleged misconduct.
In Jaber v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 179, the applicant was a Jordanian national. He alleged a risk to his life and safety in Jordan due to threats from his sister’s husband, arising from a family dispute and the supposed involvement of his tribe.
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada determined that the applicant had viable IFA in Irbid, Aqaba, and Southern Shuna, Jordan, where he could safely and reasonably relocate. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the RPD’s decision.
In the present application, the applicant argued that his former counsel’s incompetence or negligence undermined the IFA analysis and contributed to unfavourable IFA findings, which were determinative in the RPD’s and the RAD’s decisions.
In connection with this argument, the applicant alleged the following:
- a breach of procedural fairness
- a breach of the duty of loyalty owed to him
- a conflict of interest in representing both him and his wife
- a misunderstanding of procedure
- a failure to submit purported new evidence
- nondisclosure of an Apr. 4, 2024 procedural fairness letter, which he did not receive from his former representative
- a failure to seek or secure a hearing before the RAD
The applicant claimed that his prior counsel amended his narrative and his wife’s affidavit and described him as displaying anger issues and engaging in physical abuse to advance his ex-spouse’s refugee protection claim. The former representative denied the allegations.
Incompetence argument rejected
The Federal Court dismissed the application. According to the court, to prove that counsel incompetence led to a procedural fairness breach, the applicant should establish that:
- The representative’s alleged conduct amounted to incompetence
- There was a miscarriage of justice, given the reasonable probability of a different outcome if not for the alleged conduct
- The representative received notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond
The court ruled that the application failed under the second branch of the tripartite test. The court explained that the alleged amendments to the applicant’s narrative and his ex-wife’s affidavit did not affect the RPD’s and the RAD’s decisions, which both depended on the IFA analysis.
The court noted that the RPD asked the applicant about the alleged physical and verbal abuse. Rather than making a denial, the applicant said he was emotionally unstable during his marital relationship and pushed his wife away due to anger.
The court disagreed with the applicant’s argument that his former representative failed to submit purported new evidence, which allegedly prevented an RAD hearing from taking place and which could have impacted the result.
The court held that the applicant failed to specify what this new evidence would have been, how it could have met the statutory threshold for admission on appeal, or how it could have influenced the outcome.
Next, the court determined that the applicant failed to provide evidence regarding the alleged procedural fairness letter or explain how that letter could have affected the result.
Lastly, the court rejected the applicant’s claim that his prior counsel failed to pursue an argument grounded in the principle of family unity under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The court concluded that this omission would not have constituted a reasonable probability of another outcome, as determining broader international humanitarian obligations went beyond the RPD’s and RAD’s mandates.
