What constitutes misconduct of counsel at a credible basis hearing?

A similar case to this worker’s circumstances was considered in Huynh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 65 F.T.R. 11 (F.C.T.D.). In that case, the alleged misconduct of counsel involved a failure to tell the applicant’s entire story, a failure to review documents with the applicant prior to the hearing and completion of it at the hearing, a failure to submit all of the available information on country conditions, a failure to object to problematic interpretation, counsel’s lack of familiarity with the refugee process and a failure to advise the applicant of the possibility of a judicial review. Rothstein J. found, at page 15 that: The applicant may have other relief against counsel who represented him at the credible basis hearing. But on the question of representation by counsel, I cannot find that the credible basis tribunal committed an error of law in this case. It seems to me that in many cases unsuccessful litigants may wish to blame the result on the inadequacy of counsel. Where there is merit to such a claim, a client may be able to proceed against counsel and secure recovery. However, in my opinion, the failure of counsel, freely chosen by a client, cannot, in any but the most extraordinary case, result in an overturning of a decision on appeal or judicial review.[2]