Refused After an Interview in the Wrong Language? It May Be Unfair

Imagine waiting years for a decision on your permanent residence application, only to have your hopes dashed after an interview. Now, imagine that during this critical interview, you couldn't properly understand the questions or express your answers because the interpreter spoke a different dialect or language. You felt confused and unheard, and now you have a refusal letter that questions your credibility. This frustrating scenario is more common than many applicants realize, and it strikes at the heart of a core Canadian legal principle: procedural fairness.

When an immigration officer makes a decision, it isn't just about the final outcome; the process used to get there must be fair. The right to be heard includes the right to be understood. If you were refused after an interview in the wrong language, the decision may be legally flawed. The Federal Court has reviewed cases just like this, examining where the line is drawn between a minor communication issue and a fundamental breach of fairness that renders a refusal invalid. This journey through the law shows why you must speak up and how a flawed process can be challenged.

The Legal Foundation Behind IRCC Decisions

Every immigration decision is grounded in a framework of laws that grant authority to officers and provide avenues for challenge when things go wrong. Understanding this structure is the first step in understanding your rights.

Why the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Matters

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), or IRPA, is the master blueprint for Canada's immigration system. It gives visa officers the legal authority to assess applications, conduct interviews, and make life-altering decisions about who can come to or stay in Canada. This includes the power to evaluate an applicant's credibility and determine if they meet the requirements of the program they've applied for.

In plain language: This Act is why an officer can interview you and decide if you are being truthful and if your application should be approved or refused.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: When a decision is challenged, the Federal Court looks to the IRPA to confirm the officer acted within their legal powers. The review assesses whether the officer’s decision was reasonable and the process was fair, as implicitly required by the Act.

Why the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) Matter

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR); last amended November 25, 2025 (IRPR) provide the detailed rules for the processes established by IRPA. They specify the forms, documents, and procedural steps for everything from visitor visas to permanent residence applications. While they don't explicitly detail interview procedures, they operationalize the requirements that an officer will test during an interview.

In plain language: The Regulations are the rulebook that both you and the officer must follow. They contain the specific criteria your application must meet.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: The Court checks if the officer correctly applied the specific rules in the IRPR; last amended November 25, 2025 when making their decision. A misapplication of a rule can be grounds for overturning a refusal.

Why Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) and Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) matter

When you believe an officer's decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or procedurally unfair, you can't simply appeal. You must seek permission from the Federal Court for a Judicial Review. The Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) gives the Court the power to supervise federal decision-makers, including immigration officers. The Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) set out the procedural steps for how to bring that challenge.

In plain language: These laws provide the gateway to justice, allowing you to ask a judge to review your case and determine if the officer made a legal error.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: This is the entire mechanism. Without the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) , there would be no formal way to challenge a flawed immigration decision.

When Policy Meets Reality in the Federal Court

An interview is where an applicant's story is tested. For those requiring an interpreter, it's also where the process can break down. Two Federal Court cases highlight the critical difference between a flawed interview and a fatally unfair one.

The Breaking Point: A Mismatch in Language

This exact scenario unfolded for an Afghan national in Kandahari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1008. The applicant’s native language was Pashto, but the interview was conducted with a Dari-speaking interpreter. Predictably, communication faltered. The officer noted contradictions and untruthful answers, leading to a refusal of his permanent residence application. The applicant challenged this, arguing the process was unfair from the start.

The Federal Court agreed, allowing the Judicial Review and ordering a new hearing with a different officer. The judge found a clear breach of procedural fairness. The language mismatch led directly to mistranslated answers, which formed the basis of the officer's negative credibility finding. The applicant’s ability to present his case was fundamentally compromised.

I am also satisfied that Mr. Kandahari's mistranslated answers were consequential, connected to the decision maker's findings, and affected his ability to answer questions or present his application for permanent residence... This resulted in a breach of procedural fairness.

Expert insight: This case is a powerful reminder that applicants must assert their right to a proper interpreter. If you cannot fully understand or be understood, you must raise the issue immediately. The court also highlighted the power of evidence; the applicant’s sworn affidavit detailing the interpretation problems was accepted as fact because the government did not challenge it. A decision may seem reasonable on the surface, but if the process was unfair, like being interviewed in the wrong language, it can be successfully overturned.

The Other Side of the Coin: The Need for Timely Objections

While Kandahari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1008 shows a clear-cut breach, the case of Mekengo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 132 illustrates the limits of this argument and the responsibilities of the applicant. In this case, an applicant was refused permanent residence under a refugee program due to credibility issues. He later challenged the decision, claiming there were interpretation problems and that trauma had affected his memory during the interview.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer’s decision was both reasonable and procedurally fair. The court noted that the applicant had not raised any concerns about the interpreter during the interview, which can be seen as waiving the issue. Furthermore, he provided no medical evidence to support his claim that trauma impacted his memory. The court reinforced a key legal standard for interpretation services.

Interpretation need not be perfect; it “must be continuous, precise, competent, impartial and contemporaneous”...

Expert insight: This ruling underscores two critical points. First, you must raise interpretation issues at the earliest opportunity. Waiting until after a refusal weakens your argument significantly. Second, claims of medical or psychological issues affecting testimony, such as trauma, must be substantiated with evidence. An officer is not required to simply accept such an assertion without proof. The court’s role in Judicial Review is not to reweigh the evidence but to ensure the decision was made fairly and based on the record.

Key Lessons

• Speak Up Immediately: If you cannot understand your interpreter, you must state it clearly and promptly during the interview. As shown in Mekengo, silence can be interpreted as acceptance.
• Procedural Fairness is Your Right: The process matters as much as the outcome. Being interviewed in the wrong language is a fundamental breach of your right to be heard, as established in Kandahari.
• Your Affidavit is Powerful Evidence: In a Judicial Review, your sworn written testimony about what happened in the interview can be decisive, especially if the government doesn't challenge it.
• Substantiate Your Claims: If you argue that a medical condition like trauma affected your ability to testify, you must provide medical evidence to support it. An officer is not obligated to speculate.
• The Standard is Competence, Not Perfection: The law recognizes that interpretation can have minor flaws. The service must be competent enough to ensure fair communication, but it does not have to be flawless.

Navigating an immigration interview is stressful enough without the added barrier of a language mismatch. These court decisions demonstrate that while IRCC has the authority to make decisions under the IRPA, that authority must be exercised fairly. If you believe you were refused after an interview in the wrong language, the path to a fair reassessment may lie in a Judicial Review. Preparing a strong case with clear evidence is essential, and seeking expert legal guidance can make all the difference.