Federal Court Grants Judicial Review on Unreasonable Decision Regarding Permanent Residence

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260520 Docket: IMM-23938-24 Citation: 2026 FC 644 Toronto, Ontario, May 20, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME_1]: [NAME_2] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] of [NAME_3] [[NAME_3]] dated December 9, 2024 which refused the Applicant’s application for permanent residence [PR] on humanitarian and compassionate [[NAME_3]] grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act]. [Decision] The Applicant submits the Decision was unreasonable [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I grant the application and return the Decision to [NAME_3] for redetermination.

II. Background [ 3 ] On May 17, 2023, the Applicant, a citizen of India, submitted an [NAME_3] application [Application]. The Applicant had been in Canada for twelve years, and at the time of her Application, she had been working as a health care aide in a long-term care centre since August 7, 2022. In her affidavit, the Applicant states that the basis of the application was her positive contribution to [COMPANY_4] as a health care aide during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 4 ] The submissions letter included in her Application stressed this role as a health care aide, along with previous Federal Court and Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration Appeal Division jurisprudence supporting the greater level of weight that has been afforded to this consideration in the assessment of one’s establishment in Canada ( [NAME_5] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1). The submissions letter also cited [NAME_6] [BIOC] of the Applicant’s second cousin in India, whose education she financially supports. It also noted country condition evidence, including research and reports on gender-based discrimination in India, as the Applicant asserted she would be at risk of gender-based mistreatment, were she to return. Finally, the submissions letter noted that, in regard to the Applicant’s withdrawn refugee claim, the legal representative who had represented the Applicant, and filed that claim on her behalf, had since been suspended by their [NAME_7]. [ 5 ] In 2023 and 2024, further submissions submitted on behalf of the Applicant included a letter of support from her town’s Mayor, photographs of the Applicant with friends and coworkers, and submissions relating to the case of [NAME_5] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1044. [ 6 ] By letter dated December 9, 2024, the Application was refused. [ 7 ] The reasons for the Decision identified that the bases of the [NAME_3] Application were the Applicant’s establishment in Canada, concerns related to adverse country conditions in India for the Applicant, and [NAME_6], in relation to the child of the Applicant’s second cousin. [ 8 ] The Officer concluded that the Applicant’s [NAME_3] materials relating to establishment were not sufficient to warrant an exemption on [NAME_3] grounds, though the Officer did find the Applicant’s materials indicated she has some level of establishment in Canada. In particular, the Officer found that the Applicant had familial ties to Canada, but also to other countries, including India where her parents reside. The Officer further gave positive consideration to the Applicant’s ability to obtain employment, support herself and send remittances to her family. Positive consideration was also given to her employment since 2022 as a health care aide. However, the Officer concluded that none of this was sufficient to demonstrate establishment warranting a [NAME_3] exemption, since doing things like furthering skills, obtaining employment and making friends were things that anyone who was in Canada for a long period of time were likely to do, and as she had only been employed as a health care aide in Canada for “a couple of years” . [ 9 ] On adverse country conditions, the Officer noted the evidence submitted by the Applicant, including research reports and articles concerning country conditions in India, and the Applicant’s materials on violence and discrimination against women in India. The Officer further acknowledged that the Applicant might be negatively affected by such gender-based violence and discrimination if she were to return to India. However, they noted that the Applicant did not indicate she had previously been negatively affected by such considerations when she lived in India and that the possibility of future gender-based violence and discrimination was “only one factor for consideration” in the [NAME_3] application, which required a global assessment of all of the pertinent factors. [ 10 ] In terms of [NAME_6], the Officer acknowledged that the Applicant sent remittances to assist with the education of her second cousin, a high school student who resides in India with his parents. However, the Officer then noted that even if the Applicant returned to India, the high level of education attained by the Applicant, along with her familiarity with India and her significant work experience in Canada would assist her to obtain employment and be able to continue to support both herself and also her second cousin’s education. The Applicant’s “special bond” with her second cousin, established through weekly video calls, was also unpersuasive to the Officer, who found that there was nothing indicating that her second cousin would not instead benefit from the Applicant’s physical presence in India. [ 11 ] The Officer then stated that that on a global assessment of all the factors, and having reviewed all the documentation, they were not satisfied the humanitarian and compassionate considerations justified an exemption under subsection 25(1) of the Act. The Application was accordingly refused. [ 12 ] On December 18, 2024, the Applicant sought judicial review of the Decision.

III. Issue and Standard of Review [ 13 ] The sole issue in this judicial review application is whether the Officer’s Decision is reasonable. [ 14 ] The presumptive standard of review of the merits of an administrative decision is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at paras 10, 25). This is also the standard for [NAME_3] decisions ( [NAME_8] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 14 at para 26; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 47 at para 64; [NAME_8] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1047 at para 18; [NAME_10] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 SCC 61 [ [NAME_10] ] at paras 42–44). [ 15 ] In undertaking reasonableness review, the Court must assess whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness, namely justification, transparency and intelligibility ( Vavilov at para 99; [NAME_11] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 SCC 21 [ [NAME_11] ] at para 51 ). A decision will be reasonable if it is “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( [NAME_11] at para 46, citing Vavilov at paras 84 – 85). Further, an applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision was unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100). An administrative decision may be unreasonable where there is a “failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process” or a “failure of justification given the legal and factual constraints bearing on the decision” ( Vavilov at para 101; [NAME_11] at para 49).

IV. Legal Framework [ 16 ] The authority to issue permanent resident status on [NAME_3] grounds stems from section 25 of the Act. The relevant subsection is 25(1): Humanitarian and compassionate considerations — request of foreign national 25 (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), the Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who applies for permanent resident status and who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35, 35.1 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 34, 35, 35.1 or 37 — who applies for a permanent resident visa, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected. Séjour pour motif d’ordre humanitaire à la demande de l’étranger 25 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.2), le ministre doit, sur demande d’un étranger se trouvant au Canada qui demande le statut de résident permanent et qui soit est interdit de territoire — sauf si c’est en raison d’un cas visé aux articles 34, 35, 35.1 ou 37 —, soit ne se conforme pas à la présente loi, et peut, sur demande d’un étranger se trouvant hors du Canada — sauf s’il est interdit de territoire au titre des articles 34, 35, 35.1 ou 37 — qui demande un visa de résident permanent, étudier le cas de cet étranger; il peut lui octroyer le statut de résident permanent ou lever tout ou partie des critères et obligations applicables, s’il estime que des considérations d’ordre humanitaire relatives à l’étranger le justifient, compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché. [ 17 ] Subsection 25(1) thus empowers the Minister with the discretion to provide relief from the ordinary operation of the Act and to grant foreign nationals permanent residence status, if the Minister “is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national ” . Humanitarian and compassionate considerations are “those facts, established by the evidence, which would excite in a reasonable […] [person] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another – so long as these misfortunes ‘warrant the granting of special relief’ from the effect of the provisions of the [Act]” ( [NAME_12] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1970), 4 IAC 338, at p. 350, as quoted in [NAME_10] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 SCC 61 [ [NAME_10] ] at paras 13 and 21 ). [ 18 ] The equitable goals of the provision are to respond flexibly to provide an exemption where an officer finds the applicant faces hardship that is “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate” ( [NAME_10] at paras 33 and 45). The officer assessing an [NAME_3] application conducts a “global” assessment in which all relevant considerations are “weighed cumulatively as part of the determination of whether relief is justified in the circumstances” ( [NAME_10] at para 28; [NAME_13] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) , at paras 74–75). The onus is on the applicant to establish the facts supporting their [NAME_3] application ( [NAME_14] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1383 at para 28; [NAME_15] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FCA 189 at paras 35, 45 and 61).

V. Analysis A. The Decision is unreasonable (1) The Decision’s Establishment Analysis [ 19 ] Upon review of the record in this matter, it is evident that there is a multi-pronged “failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process” of the Officer in the Decision. As a result, I find the Decision to be unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 101; [NAME_11] at para 49). [ 20 ] The Applicant made a variety of submissions as to why the Decision should be considered unreasonable. These included that: The Officer failed to engage with the Applicant’s central arguments and Federal Court jurisprudence regarding the moral debt owed to immigrant health care workers, and thus unreasonably diminished her contributions to her community. The decision rendered was unresponsive to evidence indicating removal of the Applicant would lead to a negative impact to the community and health services in McLennan, Alberta. The Officer incorrectly assessed the Applicant’s establishment in Canada through a hardship lens, holding that the skills she developed in Canada would mitigate the hardship she would face in India. [ 21 ] The Respondent, in turn, also deftly addressed these issues in its submissions. [ 22 ] However, in my view, two fundamental errors in the reasoning of the Officer clearly render the Decision unreasonable. The first pertains to the Officer’s analysis of the establishment of the Applicant in Canada. [ 23 ] In this regard, the Decision states that the Applicant has resided in Canada for a significant period of time, twelve years. It also notes that “positive consideration” towards establishment has been given to the Applicant having built skills and obtained employment which enabled her to support herself and her family. It further notes that “positive consideration” was also given in relation to the fact that the Applicant had worked as a health care aide in recent years. However, the Decision ultimately holds that the establishment of the Applicant did not warrant granting an [NAME_3] exception, asserting: [B]eing mindful of the fact that furthering work skills, obtaining employment, and making friends are things that individuals who have resided in Canada for a period of time might be likely to engage in, and acquire , and being mindful of the fact that the applicant has only been employed in the health care field for a two years in Canada, I do not find that the applicant’s [NAME_3] materials demonstrate establishment in Canada that would warrant an exemption on [NAME_3] grounds. [Emphasis added.] [ 24 ] From this, it appears a central reason the Officer held that the Applicant was unable to demonstrate a level of establishment sufficient to support an [NAME_3] exemption was because the Officer essentially disregarded, or at least discounted, factors such as her development of work skills, securing employment and making friends in the community as things that anyone who had resided in Canada for a significant period of time would have done. I find this determination to be irrational. [ 25 ] This holding seems to fundamentally miss the point of what establishment is, and why this factor is given consideration in [NAME_3] analysis. The reality is that not everyone who comes to Canada does these things – develops work skills, seeks out and obtains employment such that they become self sufficient, or cultivates friendships or relationships which integrate them into the community, or the like. For those who do, as opposed to those who do not, such achievements demonstrate one’s integration into the fabric of [COMPANY_4]. In other words, it is undertaking and succeeding in doing exactly such things that constitutes establishment in the country. It is unclear why the Officer essentially assumes that such actions are common, and then blithely chooses to disregard them as a natural consequence of staying in Canada for an unspoken period of time. At best, this constitutes a “veiled” exceptionality test ( [NAME_16] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 564 at para 21 referring to [NAME_17] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 642 para 20, citing [NAME_18] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 350   at para 24; [NAME_19] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1427 at para 31; [NAME_20] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 340   at paras 17, 23; [NAME_21] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),  2021 FC 1482 at paras 22–25). [ 26 ] I also note that even if one accepts the assumption that such activities are commonplace among those staying in Canada, it is unclear what this should be taken to mean if such indicia of establishment are to be of any utility in the analysis. The fact would remain that certain people who stay in the country do such things, and in doing so become strongly established, while others do not do them and, accordingly, do not become established. The [NAME_3] analysis then considers this factor in determining whether significant humanitarian and compassionate considerations arise from the removal of a party who is strongly established in Canada. [ 27 ] The Officer’s reasoning with respect establishment begs the question of how an applicant could ever demonstrate establishment. It would appear to me that it creates something of a no-win situation for applicants: [redacted] [ 28 ] As a last thought on this point, I note that in the Decision the Officer states that the Applicant has resided in Canada for twelve years and they find this to be a significant period of time. One might query why it is that such an extended period of residence in the country should be considered significant, if the activities one engages in that demonstrate integration and attachment in Canada over that time are essentially disregarded as the commonplace result of an such a stay. (2) The Decision fails to assign discernable weight to the [NAME_3] factors [ 29 ] Though the previous consideration is sufficient to render the Decision unreasonable, I note that there is also a second, more global problem in the reasoning of the Decision. Though neither party in this matter initially pointed this out, in the reasons the Officer completely fails to assign, or at least indicate the weight which was assigned to certain of the various [NAME_3] factors considered in the Decision, and problematically this cannot be discerned from the reasons. [ 30 ] That is to say, throughout the Decision the Officer considers and notes the Applicant’s evidence, but simply does not make clear the weight which they give to the [NAME_3] factors and their related evidence. The Decision does say that “positive consideration” is given to certain facts in the Officer’s Establishment analysis, which could be interpreted as equivalent to assigning some unspoken level positive weight to these facts: I have given positive consideration to the fact that the applicant is employed in the field of health care, however, I am mindful that the applicant has only been employed as a Health Care Aide for a couple of years. […] I have given positive consideration to the fact that the applicant has been able to obtain employment that enables her to support herself, and to send financial support to her family in India. I have also given positive consideration to the fact that, since 2022, the applicant has been employed as a Health Care Aide in the health care field in Canada. I note that the applicant’s [NAME_3] materials indicate that the applicant is making efforts to further her Work Skills in Canada, and that the applicant has friends and acquaintances in Canda, and I have also given positive consideration to these things. [ 31 ] With respect to the establishment factor then, it would appear clear that some positive weight was assigned by the Officer, but whether this was significant, moderate or slight is in no way discernable. This makes it impossible to trace or understand the degree to which this factor came into play in the determination of whether an [NAME_3] exception was warranted. [ 32 ] Worse still, in the aspects of the Decision dealing with the other [NAME_3] factors identified by the Officer, it is even less clear whether weight was assigned to these considerations at all or, if so, the degree of weight those factors were assigned by the Officer. Take the conclusion of the Officer’s analysis of the Adverse Country Conditions cited by the Applicant: [redacted] [ 33 ] Not only does the Officer not indicate that any weight was given to this consideration, but this conclusion on Adverse Country Conditions does not demonstrate or indicate how this factor came into play, or was weighed, in the cumulative [NAME_3] assessment. The difficulty in tracing the logic of the decision and understanding the cumulative [NAME_3] determination of the Officer was evident from the oral submissions of the parties in the hearing. There, counsel for the Respondent noted that their view was that no weight had been assigned by the Officer to this consideration, while the Applicant’s counsel pointed out that as the excerpt above accepts the possibility that the Applicant might be affected by violence or discrimination against women in India, but then states that this is only one factor in the [NAME_3] global assessment, then some level of positive weight must have been assigned by the Officer. The fact that the question of whether weight was assigned to this consideration at all was unclear to the parties, and certainly that there was no indication of to what degree it was assigned or considered, if it was, is telling. [ 34 ] Similarly, the concluding few sentences of the Decision’s BIOC analysis results in a finding, but again provides no indication of the assignment of weight, if any, given to this factor either. Being unable to discern this or the degree to which consideration of this came into play, again, makes it impossible for a reviewer to trace the reasoning as to the impact of this factor in the requisite global assessment: […] I find that the applicant’s familiarity with India, the high level of education that she was able to attain in India, and the significant work experience, in a variety of different professions, that she has been able to obtain in Canada, would all likely greatly assist the applicant to obtain employment in India that would enable her to continue to support herself and to provide financial support for [NAME_22] I am mindful that the applicant’s [NAME_3] materials indicate that, though the applicant has never met [NAME_22] in person, she has established a special bond with him through weekly video calls. I find that there is little in the applicant’s [NAME_3] materials to indicate that, if the applicant were to return to India, that [NAME_22] would not greatly benefit from having the applicant physically present in his daily life. [ 35 ] The Officer’s analysis with respect to the BIOC considerations is fine, as far as it goes, in their pointing out countervailing BIOC considerations, but again it is unclear what that means in the final analysis. Was no weight then ultimately given to this consideration by the Officer in the global [NAME_3] assessment? Was some slight level of positive weight or consideration given to this? And how did these come into play in the overall [NAME_3] assessment? That a reviewer is unable to determine this, without themselves filling in the gaps in the reasoning, is again telling. [ 36 ] The ultimate conclusion in the Decision, with respect to the global [NAME_3] assessment, also establishes that the Officer makes findings but is silent as to how the various factors were weighed and balanced against one another, to result in the final determination reached: Having considered the circumstances of the applicant’s [NAME_3] materials, having conducted a global assessment of all of the factors for consideration that have been brought forward, and having reviewed all of the documentation that has been submitted, I am not satisfied that the humanitarian and compassionate considerations before me justify an exemption under section 25(1) of the Act. [ 37 ] Thus, while the Officer announces this determination, this conclusion gives no indication of how it was reached, or what weighting and balancing of the various factors considered produced it. While I agree with the Respondent’s submission that Officer’s reasons are not to be held up to a standard of perfection, in my view this is no “minor misstep” , nor it is “superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision” ( Vavilov at para 100). This is also not an unreasonable “line-by-line treasure hunt for error” per the caution in Vavilov (at para 102). Nor can this Court buttress the reasons or insert itself into the decision-making process by assuming that “some weight” was assigned here and “no weight” was assigned elsewhere ( Vavilov at paras 96, 83). [ 38 ] The guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada on [NAME_3] applications is clear that for the decision maker the [NAME_3] assessment is to be a “global one” and “relevant considerations are to be weighed cumulatively as part of the determination of whether relief is justified in the circumstances” ( [NAME_10] at para 40). [NAME_10] provides that “officers making humanitarian and compassionate determinations must substantively consider and weigh all the relevant facts and factors before them” (at para 25 citing [NAME_13] at paras 74–75). Conduct in such [NAME_3] assessments was summarized by my colleague Justice Aylen in [NAME_23] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 975 [ [NAME_23] ], whose words are apropos: [10] Further, in conducting an [NAME_3] analysis, an officer must determine whether to assign a positive, negative or neutral weight to each factor raised by an applicant. Where a positive or negative weight is assigned, the officer must also determine the amount of weight to assign, often expressed as “significant”, “some” or “little” weight. The officer must then conduct a global assessment, where all of the relevant considerations are to be weighed cumulatively in order to determine if relief is justified in the circumstances. However, in this case, the Officer’s reasons are silent as to what weight, if any, was ultimately assigned to the Applicant’s community involvement in the assessment of her establishment in Canada, which prevents the Court from knowing whether a proper global assessment was conducted. [ 39 ] I do note that the issue here is not merely that the Decision failed to specifically utilize the term “weight” in its language. That, of course, is not necessary. It is rather that by failing to indicate how or the degree to which the various factors were taken into consideration, the weight or consideration of those factors simply cannot be discerned. In the recent words of my colleague Justice Ngo in [NAME_24] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 384: [ 20 ] While an Officer may not necessarily need to use specific language, their reasons must still be clearly justified and clearly communicate the underlying rationale for the degree of weight granted to certain factors and, in turn, the underlying rationale for the decision as a whole ( Xue at para 32, citing Vavilov  at para 84). For a decision to be reasonable, the Court must be able to discern how the BIOC was weighed against other positive and negative elements in the [NAME_3] application ( [NAME_25] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 161). [ 40 ] Though it is clear that the Officer considered the evidence and made findings, without any indication as to the weight that was assigned to the evidence and those factors, it is unclear how the Officer conducted their global assessment and arrived at their conclusion ( [NAME_23] at para 10; [NAME_24] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 384 at para 24). Obviously, curial review does not include reweighing of evidence before the administrative decision maker, but here the Court is unable to trace an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis in the Officer’s Decision.

Accordingly, for this reason as well, I find the Decision to be unreasonable.

VI. Conclusion [ 41 ] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is granted, and the Decision is set aside. The matter is returned for redetermination by a different [NAME_3] officer. Prior to the redetermination, the Applicant shall be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation in support of their application. [ 42 ] The parties have not proposed any question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the Act, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-23938-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review application is granted. The decision of the Officer dated December 9, 2024, is set aside and the matter is returned for redetermination by a different immigration officer. Prior to the redetermination, the Applicant shall be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation in support of their application. No question of general importance is certified. "[NAME_1]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-23938-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_2] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 9, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME_1] j. DATED: may 20, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME_26] For The Applicant [NAME_27] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME_28], Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta For The Respondent