Federal Court Grants Temporary Stay of Removal

Date: 20260210 Dockets: IMM-25054-25 IMM-25064-25 Citation: 2026 FC 192 Ottawa, Ontario, February 10, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

ORDER AND

REASONS UPON considering the Applicants’ motion for a stay of their removal to Nigeria, scheduled to take place on February 12, 2026 for the Principal Applicant [NAME]; February 16, 2026 for [NAME], and February 18, 2026 for the [NAME] and the [NAME]; AND UPON reviewing the material filed by both parties, including the underlying Application for Leave and Judicial Review ( “ALJR” ) of the negative decision of a Senior Immigration Officer of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer” ) on the Applicants’ Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ( “PRRA” ) (ALJR IMM-25054-25) and their application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds ( “[NAME]” ) (ALJR IMM-25064-25), both dated November 10, 2024 and the request for reconsideration of both the [NAME] decisions ( “Reconsideration” ), denied on November 14, 2025 (I note that the Applicants have indicated that they also filed an ALJR in respect of this decision; however, the ALJR for the reconsideration was not part of the record); AND UPON hearing the submissions of counsel for both parties appearing by videoconference on Thursday, February 5, 2026; AND UPON noting that a stay of a removal order is a form of extraordinary equitable relief requiring the exercise of the Court’s discretion having regard to all the relevant circumstances and an application of the following legal principles;

I. Legal Framework [ 1 ] To obtain a stay of removal, an applicant must satisfy each element of the three-part test set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) , [1994] 1 SCR 31 and [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA) [ [NAME] ], and must therefore show that (1) the application for leave and for judicial review raises a serious issue; (2) irreparable harm to the applicant would result if the stay of removal is not granted; and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. [ADDRESS] will assess these factors and exercise its discretion having regard to all the relevant facts and determine whether the granting of the stay is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case ( [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2017 SCC 34 at paras 1, 25). [ 2 ] The “serious issue” requirement is only met in such cases if on a “hard look” at the issues, the applicant has put forward “quite a strong case” or shown a “likelihood of success on the underlying application,” recognizing that the standard of review is reasonableness ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2009 FCA 81 at paras 66–67, adopting [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (TD) , 2001 FCT 148, [2001] 3 FC 682 at paras 8–10; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 882 (CanLII); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16–17, 23–25). [ 3 ] Irreparable harm must be more than the harm or prejudice that is inherent in the removal process ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2000 CanLII 15140 (FC), 188 FTR 39 at para 21) and the applicant must demonstrate through clear and non-speculative evidence that there is a likelihood of harm that is more than a series of possibilities ( United States Steel Corporation v Canada (Attorney General) , 2010 FCA 200 at para 7; [COMPANY] v [NAME] , 2014 FCA 112 [ [COMPANY] ] at para 24; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2004 FCA 427 at para 14). The harm must be real, definite, unavoidable harm—not hypothetical and speculative harm—that cannot be repaired later ( [COMPANY] at para 24). [ 4 ] Finally, Canada has an interest in the prompt removal of persons whose refugee claims have not been upheld (as articulated in subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]), and this is not merely a matter of administrative convenience, as it goes to the wider public interest in ensuring confidence in the integrity of the immigration program as a whole ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2007 FC 626; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2004 FCA 261 at para 22).

II. Facts [ 5 ] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria. [ 6 ] The Applicants entered Canada on April 13, 2018 and they made a claim for Refugee Protection. The Applicants were issued Departure Orders on April 23, 2018. [ 7 ] The Refugee Protection Division denied their claim on June 4, 2021. The Applicants appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division, the appeal was dismissed on December 7, 2021. [ 8 ] The basis of the Applicants’ refugee protection claim was that they feared members of the [NAME] ( “[NAME]” ) in Nigeria, in retaliation for the Principal Applicant’s refusal to take his father’s place, on the basis that the [NAME] practices go against his Christian beliefs. [ 9 ] The Applicants’ PRRA application was submitted on August 1, 2023. The Applicants allege that they submitted new evidence concerning the death of his brother at the hands of the [NAME] and new and ongoing threats by the [NAME] to his mother and the Applicants. [ 10 ] On October 18, 2023, the Applicants submitted an [NAME] application. [ 11 ] The same Officer considered both the Applicants’ PRRA and their [NAME] Application and denied both applications on October 2, 2025. [ 12 ] On November 13, 2025, the Applicants filed an Application for Deferral, requesting the reconsideration of both the PRRA and the [NAME] Application based on new evidence. The Request for Deferral was denied on December 2, 2025 ( “Deferral” ). [ 13 ] In oral argument, the Applicants submitted that they paid the fees and filed an ALJR of the Deferral decision, but they still do not have a Court file number for this matter.

III. Analysis [ 14 ] At the outset of the hearing, I noted that the Applicants’ written submissions for the request for a stay of removal in both IMM-25054-25 and IMM-25064-25 appeared to combine the elements of the tri-partite test from [NAME] . In other words, the Applicants suggested that the serious issue followed the PRRA decision, and evidence of irreparable harm and balance of convenience followed the [NAME] decision and the reconsideration decision. I indicated to the Applicants they must demonstrate how the three elements of [NAME] are satisfied in respect of each of the decisions being challenged. As a result, the Applicants’ oral arguments focused primarily on the PRRA; however, I will also address the [NAME] decisions. [ 15 ] The Applicants argued that the tripartite test for a stay of removal had been satisfied because: (i) The PRRA Officer failed to consider the totality of the new evidence submitted that substantiated ongoing and new risks; the Officer relied on outdated country information; the Officer failed to consider the Best Interests of the Child ( “BIOC” ); and failed to consider new evidence of [NAME]’s mental health issues; (ii) The [NAME] failed to properly consider the BIOC evidence and their level of establishment in Canada; and (iii) The Deferral decision failed to properly grapple with further BIOC evidence submitted concerning the [NAME]’s sexuality. [ 16 ] The Respondent argued that none of the elements of the tripartite test were established in this case in respect of the PRRA, [NAME] and the Reconsideration and therefore, the motion must be dismissed. They noted that the decisions are reasonable and based on the information and evidence that the Applicants provided in support of each of their respective applications. The Respondent submitted that the Applicants’ arguments go to the weight that the [NAME] accorded to the evidence. The Respondent also argued that the Applicants have not advanced clear, non-speculative risks of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favours early enforcement. In addition, the Respondent notes that the Reconsideration decision notes that the new evidence submitted on the BIOC issues would be more appropriately considered in the context of a fresh [NAME] application. A. PRRA [ 17 ] The Applicants asserted that the serious issue branch of the test was met in the context of the PRRA, because the Officer failed to consider fresh evidence submitted in support of their refugee claim. In particular, the Applicants noted that the Officer states: “after a search in the systems for records of correspondence and submissions from the applicants, no additional submission or evidence from the Applicants was found.” The Applicants appear to suggest that this is a breach of procedural fairness. [ 18 ] The Applicants points to evidence in the affidavit of the Principal Applicant that illustrates documents were submitted via email to the [NAME]. I have reviewed this evidence, and with respect, it does not support the assertion that new documents were submitted for consideration with the Applicants’ PRRA. The information set out in the email clearly states: Your email has been received by the [NAME]. … This inbox is only for:

1. Signing up to use Canada Post’s Connect service to manage your Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application on line.

2. Making submissions to an existing Humanitarian and Compassionate ([NAME]) application. … If you are signing up to use Canada Post’s epost Connect service to manage your PRRA application online, you’ll get an email within the next business day from Canada Post asking you to register on line. Check your spam folder to make sure you don’t miss the message. Follow the instructions in the email … Empasis mine [ 19 ] In my opinion, the Applicants’ additional information submitted via email were not properly submitted for consideration in the context of their PRRA. I do not agree that this constitutes a breach of procedural fairness. [ 20 ] Nonetheless, the PRRA decision clearly states that the Officer did consider the information submitted in support of the [NAME] application in the context of the PRRA too. The Officer states, “I note that the submissions for their application for permanent residence on [NAME] include a copy of the principal applicant’s brother’s death certificate, a Nigeria Police station/crime diary extract.” In addition, the Officer noted that the [NAME] application also included country condition documentation published in 2012 concerning the [NAME] and media articles. The Officer also notes that they conducted independent research published in 2019 with respect to the [NAME]. [ 21 ] In addition, the Applicants assert that the Officer erred in considering both the [NAME] and did not conduct a proper and separate analysis of both; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 962. I agree that generally officers reviewing both applications are at a greater risk of confusing the two distinct inquiries necessary for a [NAME] application. However, I do not agree with the Applicants’ assertion that the fact that the same officer reviewed both applications in this matter is in and of itself sufficient to render the decisions unfair and unreasonable. [ 22 ] I am persuaded by the Respondent’s submissions that the Applicants have not satisfied the serious issue element of the [NAME] test in respect of the PRRA. [ 23 ] The Officer reviewed the evidence submitted in support of the PRRA and considered the additional supporting evidence submitted in respect of the Applicants’ [NAME] Application that was related to the alleged fear associated with the conduct of members of the [NAME]. The Officer found that the Applicants were not persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. A review of the Officer’s reasons for decision indicate that the Applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support the stated risk nor did they demonstrate an absence of state protection. [ 24 ] I am persuaded by the Respondent’s submissions that the onus is on an applicant to support their application with all necessary evidence; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 651 at para 22. In this case, as noted above, the Applicants failed to properly submit additional evidence to support their PRRA. Nonetheless, the PRRA decision supports that the Officer reasonably reviewed relevant new information submitted in their [NAME] Application, as applicable to the PRRA. [ 25 ] As the Applicants have failed to satisfy the first prong of the [NAME] test in respect of the PRRA, the application for a stay of removal related to the PRRA is dismissed. B. [NAME] [ 26 ] The Applicants argued that the Officer failed to properly consider the BIOC evidence submitted in support of their [NAME] Application and their level of establishment in Canada. [ 27 ] The Respondent argued that [NAME] relief is exceptional and discretionary, it is not to be used as an alternative path to permanent residency when other avenues have not been successful; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 123 at para 26. Further, they argued that considering the evidence before the Officer, the decision was reasonable. [ 28 ] The Officer noted that length of time in Canada alone is not determinative of a level of establishment that justifies the granting of [NAME] relief. The Officer considered the Applicants’ family ties, employment history, and integration with the community through organizations and friendships, but found that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a sufficient level of integration and establishment in Canada. The Officer’s reasons are transparent, justified and intelligible, and are therefore reasonable. [ 29 ] Concerning the BIOC, the Officer noted that [NAME] was over 18 years old at the time of the [NAME] Application and therefore, the Officer considered the evidence related to her mental health in other parts of the decision. The Officer went on to consider the limited evidence submitted in respect of the [NAME]. The Officer found that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate strong, significant ties in Canada, nor was there evidence advanced of particular risks the [NAME] would face if returned to Nigeria. Based on the evidence provided, the Officer’s decision is reasonable. [ 30 ] The Officer then goes on to consider the Applicants’ information concerning [NAME]’s medical and mental health issues. The Applicants submitted evidence to demonstrate that [NAME] has been struggling with mental health issues since the COVID pandemic, her symptoms included hearing voices, struggling with proper eating, depressed mood, panic and anxiety disorders. The evidence illustrated that while her symptoms have been aggravated by her family’s immigration status concerns and their pending removal from Canada, her mental health issues appear to be tied more to voices and a preoccupation with food and eating, which in my view, the evidence illustrated were longstanding health issues for her. [ 31 ] The onus is on an applicant to provide compelling, non-speculative evidence of the nature of their medical conditions and evidence that acceptable treatment is not available to the applicant in the country of removal. The publicly available information to guide applicants clearly sets this in its instructions. With respect, in my view, the Applicants failed to discharge this burden. [ 32 ] A review of the [NAME] decision illustrates that the Officer considered country condition evidence concerning the availability of mental health supports available in Nigeria, and the Officer notes that the Applicants did not provide sufficient objective evidence that acceptable treatment for [NAME] is not available in Nigeria. [ 33 ] Further, the evidence in support of the [NAME] application, while documenting some of [NAME]’s mental health issues, did not set out a long-term or ongoing treatment plan, her medications, or evidence to illustrate that this would not be available to her in Nigeria. [ 34 ] Considering the information that was provided in support of the [NAME] application, I am persuaded by the Respondent that the Decision is reasonable. [ 35 ] The Applicants have failed to satisfy the first prong of the [NAME] test in respect of the [NAME], the application for a stay of removal related to the [NAME] decision is dismissed. C. Deferral [ 36 ] Finally, the Applicants argued that the Deferral decision failed to account for new evidence of the BIOC of the [NAME] and information concerning her sexual orientation. Specifically, the Applicants submitted evidence with their request for reconsideration that the [NAME] is bisexual, and that she has been openly involved in the [COMPANY] and has spoken publicly about being a bisexual Nigerian youth. In addition, they provided further evidence concerning [NAME]’s mental health. Based on this new evidence, the Applicants requested that their [NAME] decision be reopened and reconsidered and that their PRRA decision be reconsidered. [ 37 ] The Respondent argued the Deferral decision contained no reviewable error. [ 38 ] A review of the Deferral decision indicates that a Senior Officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada advised the Applicants that the new evidence that the Applicants submitted for reconsideration would be more appropriately considered in the context of a new application—Accordingly, the Deferral was denied. [ 39 ] [ADDRESS] has noted that where an underlying ALJR targets a deferral decision, the motion for a stay of removal is seeking the same remedy as the underlying application. In these circumstances, the first prong of the [NAME] test is applied with more rigour, and the applicant must show “quite a strong case” and not simply a serious issue; RJR at 338–339; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of [NAME]) , 2009 FCA 81 at paragraphs 66–67, [2010] 2 FCR 311 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2021 FC 1463 [ [NAME] ] at paragraphs 19–22; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1801 [ [NAME] ] at 13. [ 40 ] In the context of a deferral request, officers have limited discretion to consider short-term issues that may support a deferral of removal. The purpose of a deferral is not to circumvent immigration processes as a pathway to a long-term or indefinite right to remain in Canada. Consequently, this Court has been clear that long-term or chronic medical conditions may not ground a request for deferral; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2019 CanLII 22862; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 926 at paragraph 25, and [NAME] at para 34. [ 41 ] The Applicants’ summary of the new evidence provided in support of the Deferral with respect to [NAME]’s mental health suggests that she had an acute psychotic episode on November 1, 2025. In a letter dated November 6, 2025, [NAME], a psychiatrist at the [COMPANY] indicates that the episode was triggered by the stress of her immigration situation. However, the letter also indicates that she had a similar admission into hospital in 2023 for a similar psychotic episode. The Doctor states that “The patient has a chronic condition and is still quite instable despite taking the medication.” [ 42 ] In this case, the limited evidence before me indicates that [NAME]’s mental health condition, while aggravated by the uncertainty of her immigration situation, has been a long-standing condition. The Applicants have not put forward evidence that highlights immediate short-term treatment or intervention that would be disrupted by removal. [ 43 ] The Applicants submitted evidence that the [NAME] recently disclosed to her parents that she is bisexual. The Applicants submit that the [NAME] was embarrassed to disclose this information to her parents and that she failed to understand the importance of this information in the context of their immigration applications. [ 44 ] I note that the information provided by the Applicants suggests that the [NAME] has been actively involved in her schools [NAME] since at least 2022, and that she has spoken out publicly about her experience as a bisexual Nigerian youth. [ 45 ] In the present case, it is imperative to keep in mind an important contextual constraint on this Court’s assessment of an ALJR of Deferral decisions. Subsection 48(2) of the IRPA underscores that removal orders “must be enforced as soon as possible” .

Accordingly, officers have very limited discretion to defer enforcement of a removal order; this Court has not set out an exhaustive list of circumstances, but has underscored that these are short-term constraints on enforcement such as: immediate medical issues, illness, or medical care in Canada, short-term bests interests of a child – such as finishing out an academic year; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2017 FCA 130 at paras 54-61; see also [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2019 FC 1018 at para 50; and [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2020 FC 1075 at paras 15-19. [ 46 ] Accordingly, it is difficult to satisfy the serious issue element of the test for a stay in the context of a Deferral request that is based on situations that are of a more long-term nature. In my view, the evidence submitted by the Applicants in the context of their request for Deferral is such a difficult case. [ 47 ] [ADDRESS] has held that where evidence of a new risk is put forward an officer may defer removal when the failure to defer will expose the person seeking deferral to a risk of serious personal harm— “… an enforcement officer may defer removal where an applicant establishes a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment that has arisen since the last assessment of risk … officers are to consider and asses the risk-related evidence in order to decide whether deferring removal is warranted in order to allow a full assessment of risk” ; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2016 FCA 51 at para 7. [ 48 ] The ongoing nature of [NAME]’s mental health issues, which as of November 2025 were not stable, and the risks to the [NAME] in returning to Nigeria considering her sexual orientation, are new issues that were raised in the context of the request for Deferral that were not fully considered in the context of the Applicants’ [NAME] applications. [ 49 ] Accordingly, in my view, the Applicants have narrowly satisfied the serious issue element of the test, with respect to new evidence that ought to have been considered by the reviewing Officer. [ 50 ] The Respondent noted that the disclosure was an 11th hour attempt to defer removal. I do not agree. The [NAME]’s affidavit set out why she did not come forward with this information earlier. It is not inconceivable to me that a [NAME] would not be comfortable to discuss her sexuality with her family members, notwithstanding that she is open with others, such as peers at school. [ 51 ] The Respondent also noted that the evidence in support of the claims concerning the [NAME] illustrate that she is a member of an [NAME], but not that she is an LGBTQ+ individual; in other words, that there was no evidence that the [NAME] was bisexual. The [NAME]’s affidavit details her public activity as a bisexual Nigerian youth and sets out her reasonable fears if she were to return to Nigeria for both her own and her family’s safety. Without determining the issue, in my view, the Applicants have provided some evidence that warrant consideration by an officer. [ 52 ] Considering the foregoing, the Applicants satisfy the irreparable harm element of the test. [ 53 ] I acknowledge that generally the balance of convenience weighs in favour of the Respondent in enforcing removal expeditiously, as per subsection 48(2) of the IRPA. However, the compelling considerations noted above tip the scale in favour of a temporary stay of the removal order, pending a determination of the Applicants’ ALJRs in IMM-25054-25 and IMM-25064-25. In the present case, the harms involve risks to the [NAME], which in my view, amplifies the need to be cautious.

ORDER in IMM-25054-25 and IMM-25064-25 THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicants’ motion for a stay of removal scheduled to take place on February12, 16 and 18, 2025, to Nigeria, is temporarily granted, pending a determination on the Applicants’ Application for Leave and Judicial Review of the negative [NAME] decisions. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKETS: IMM-25054-25 AND IMM-25064-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: February 5, 2026

ORDER AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: February 10, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent