Federal Court Overturns Immigration Decision Due to Insufficient Consideration of Humanitarian Grounds

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-8194-25 Citation: 2026 FC 803 Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [NAME_2] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME_2], seeks judicial review of a decision made by an immigration officer (the “Officer” ), dated March 25, 2025, refusing the Applicant’s spousal sponsorship application for permanent residency because she is inadmissible pursuant to paragraphs 36(1)(b) and 36(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 ( “IRPA” ), and refusing to grant an exception to her inadmissibility based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [ 2 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s decision ignores key submissions, such as the best interests of her children and her experience as an Indigenous person and further makes factual errors that undermine its reasonableness. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, I agree. The Officer’s decision acknowledges but fails to grapple with the Applicant’s submissions as part of the factual and legal context.

Accordingly, I allow this application for judicial review.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a 37-year-old citizen of the United States. She is also a member of the [NAME_4]. [ 5 ] In 2016, the Applicant met her current spouse, who is a Canadian citizen. The Applicant remained living in the United States and, in 2018, the couple was married. In 2019, due in part to the long-distance nature of their relationship, the couple separated. [ 6 ] In 2019 and 2020, the Applicant was charged with two offences in the United States: possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. In 2022, the Applicant was convicted of both these charges. For possession of a controlled substance, she received a sentence of 12 months probation, which was later revoked and amended to 30 days of unsupervised probation. For the conviction of driving under the influence, the Applicant received a sentence including probation for six months. [ 7 ] At some point in 2020, the Applicant reconciled with her spouse, and she and her son, [NAME_6], eventually began living with her spouse in Texas and then in Georgia in the United States. In 2021, the Applicant’s spouse became a joint legal guardian for her son. On March 12, 2022, the Applicant and her spouse renewed their vows, and, in 2023, the Applicant and her son began to live with her spouse in Canada with temporary resident permits. [ 8 ] On January 4, 2024, the Applicant gave birth to the couple’s daughter, [NAME_7]. The Applicant gave birth in the United States but soon after returned to Canada in February 2024. [ 9 ] In Spring 2024, the Applicant made an application for permanent residency under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class, with a request for an exception to her criminal inadmissibility based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [ 10 ] In a procedural fairness letter ( “PFL” ) dated March 3, 2024, the Officer advised the Applicant that she was criminally inadmissible based on her two previous convictions pursuant to paragraphs 36(1)(b) and 36(2)(b) of the IRPA. [ 11 ] On March 18, 2024, the Applicant responded to the PFL including various documents and written submissions from her counsel explaining the humanitarian and compassionate factors that she submitted outweighed the Applicant’s criminal convictions. [ 12 ] In a letter dated March 25, 2025, the Officer refused the Applicant’s spousal sponsorship application for permanent residency. The Officer found that her marriage to a Canadian citizen was genuine and that she met the first stage of eligibility criteria. However, the Officer determined that she was criminally inadmissible pursuant to paragraphs 36(1)(b) and 36(2)(b) of the IRPA. The Officer further determined that the severity of the Applicant’s criminal convictions outweighed the humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [ 13 ] In the Officer’s internal notes, they acknowledge that the Applicant’s family will be negatively affected if she is subject to removal. The Officer accepts that the Applicant and her children are established in Canada and that her spouse’s children have embraced her as a stepmother along with her son and the couple’s new-born daughter. Despite these acknowledged factors, the Officer notes that the Applicant was able to establish herself in both Canada and the United States and continues to own, along with her spouse, multiple properties in both countries. [ 14 ] The Officer then analyzes the Applicant’s criminal convictions, noting that the Applicant struggled with substance use and the strain from being a single mother without any family support. The Officer further acknowledges the fact that she is Indigenous and there is a history of systemic abuse against her community. Nevertheless, the Officer finds that the Applicant’s education and employment history, including being a cheerleading member in college, show that she was capable of making mature decisions. Consequently, the Officer gives little weight to the Applicant’s submission that her actions stemmed from intergenerational trauma inflicted upon her Indigenous community. [ 15 ] The Officer does not give weight to the Applicant’s submissions that, if she had committed her offences in Canada, she would have benefited from the principles relating to the sentencing of [NAME_8], which may have reduced her sentence. The Officer finds that this possibility was too uncertain to weigh against other factors. [ 16 ] The Officer finally emphasises the severity of the Applicant’s convictions, noting the number of deaths caused by crashes linked to drugs or alcohol in Toronto in 2024. In considering this factor, the Officer determines that rehabilitation under section 36(3)(c) of the IRPA will better serve the Applicant. The Officer concludes by stating that the Applicant is inadmissible and describes her convictions and sentences. [ 17 ] This is the decision presently under review.

III. Issue and Standard of Review [ 18 ] The sole issue in this judicial review is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable. [ 19 ] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME_9] , 2019 SCC 65 ( “ [NAME_9] ” ). I agree. [ 20 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( [NAME_9] at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( [NAME_9] at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that 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_9] at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( [NAME_9] at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 21 ] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( [NAME_9] at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( [NAME_9] at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( [NAME_9] at para 100).

IV. Analysis [ 22 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s decision disregards central arguments in her application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration, including the best interests of her children and her experience as an Indigenous person. The Applicant maintains that the Officer’s failure to engage with these key submissions informed their view that the severity of her offences alone outweighed the other factors. [ 23 ] At the hearing, the Respondent’s counsel portrayed these arguments as disputing the weight the Officer attributed to each of the factors and maintained that it was not for this Court to reweigh the factors before the Officer. The Respondent submits that the Officer was entitled to attribute significant weight to the Applicant’s criminal offences. [ 24 ] I disagree. The Officer did not merely attribute significant weight to the Applicant’s two criminal offences from events occurring in 2019 and 2020, the Officer treated these convictions as the determinative factor. The Officer’s unyielding stance towards the Applicant’s criminal offences led them to emphasize its importance despite the Applicant’s clean record since these offences, despite her counselling, and despite her completion of courses regarding substance abuse and victim impact panels. This type of analysis does not reflect the serious holistic and empathetic exploration of the totality of the evidence that my colleague, Justice Campbell, described as required by subsection 25(1) of the IRPA ( [NAME_10] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 1212 at para 34; [NAME_11] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1380 at para 12). As shown in the analysis below, the Officer failed to grapple with the Applicant’s key submissions that may have altered this uncompromising position. A. The Officer Lacked Consideration for the Best Interests of the Children [ 25 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s analysis of her children’s best interests failed to discuss the stability achieved by the Applicant’s son, [NAME_6], in his schooling and the caregiving needs of the Applicant’s daughter, [NAME_7], who is now a toddler. Additionally, the Applicant submits that the Officer did not account for the hardships that the couple would face upon separation, as the Applicant states that it is not viable for her spouse to pursue American citizenship. [ 26 ] The Respondent submits that the Officer acknowledged that hardship would result from the Applicant’s removal but concluded that this hardship resulted from the Applicant’s own choices which led to her criminal convictions. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant’s arguments, if accepted, would lead all parents with loving relationships to their children to have a positive result from an analysis based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [ 27 ] In my view, the Officer’s reasoning regarding the best interests of the children provides only a generalized and generic overview of the family’s situation without actually accounting for [NAME_6]’s and [NAME_7]’s best interests. [ 28 ] The best interests of the children are the preeminent factor within an analysis based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations ( [NAME_12] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 SCC 61 ( “ [NAME_12] ” ) at para 38). It is well established that officers must do more than regurgitate applicants’ submissions regarding the best interests of the children, rather they must actually identify, define, and account for the children’s best interests with a great deal of attention ( [NAME_12] at para 39). While no special formula is required for an officer to account for the children’s best interests, the officer must be alive, alert, and sensitive to these interests ( [NAME_12] at paras 38-39; [NAME_13] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 516 at paras 21-22). Although other factors may reasonably outweigh the best interests of the children, the importance of this factor should lead officers to give it substantial weight in their analysis ( [NAME_12] at para 38). [ 29 ] In this case, even though the Officer notes that the Applicant’s children are established in Canada, they provide no details as to their lives in Canada or whether their best interests favour staying in Canada or the United States. The Officer does not identify the children’s ages or their emotional needs or interests. There is no discussion regarding [NAME_6]’s schooling or the details of his establishment in Canada. There is equally no discussion regarding the joint caregiving needs of [NAME_7]. The Officer has left the Court completely in the dark regarding their analysis of these factors, which were central to the Applicant’s submissions. [ 30 ] Moreover, as the Applicant’s counsel stated at the hearing, the Officer’s analysis improperly subsumes [NAME_6]’s and [NAME_7]’s best interests within the interests of adults connected to them. Instead of engaging with the best interests of [NAME_6] and [NAME_7], the Officer simply notes that the Applicant’s spouse and his children have established an emotional connection to them. Similarly, the Officer recognizes only that the Applicant would not face financial strain upon relocating to the United States. There is no separate analysis regarding the impact of the challenges or hardships [NAME_6] and [NAME_7] may face upon relocation. The Supreme Court has stated that a separate analysis is required for children’s interest as compared to the adults in their lives ( [NAME_12] at para 41). The Officer’s failure to grapple with [NAME_6]’s and [NAME_7]’s best interest separately from their guardians is sufficient to warrant this Court’s intervention on its own ( [NAME_14] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1160 ( “ [NAME_14] ” ) at para 22; [NAME_17] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (CA) , 2002 FCA 475 at para 10). B. The Officer’s Failure to Grapple with the Applicant’s Indigenous Background [ 31 ] The Applicant is a member of the [NAME_4] and submitted various articles showing the history of colonialism and the ongoing challenges faced by the [NAME_5] and other [NAME_18] within the United States. The Applicant’s counsel submitted to the Officer that her childhood and the systemic abuse of [NAME_18] in the United States impacted her mental and physical well-being at the time of her offences. She further submitted to the Officer that, if the Applicant had been convicted in Canada, she would have benefited from a different sentencing structure, including considerations for her challenging upbringing, involving foster care and the substance abuse of her parents along with laws, practices, customs and legal traditions of the [NAME_5]. Before this Court, the Applicant submits that the Officer acknowledged but did not adequately grapple with these factors. [ 32 ] The Respondent submits that there is no case law supporting that an officer must consider the principles relating to the sentencing of [NAME_8] within a humanitarian and compassionate analysis under subsection 25(1) of the IRPA. Instead, relying on [NAME_19] v Canada ([NAME_20]) , 2017 FCA 130 ( “ [NAME_19] ” ), the Respondent submits that this type of analysis is supported within the administrative law context only where an individual’s liberty interest is engaged or punitive sanctions may be imposed (at paras 65-66; [NAME_22] (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 537 at para 57). [ 33 ] At the hearing, the Applicant’s counsel agreed that a formal process analyzing the sentencing principles of [NAME_8] was subject to [NAME_19] , and did not apply in this case, but maintained that the Officer’s decision erred in treating the Applicant’s resiliency and success as a reason to discount the systemic factors she faced. [ 34 ] I agree with the Applicant. Although the sentencing principles described in R v [NAME_23] , 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC) , are not directly applicable as a separate step in an analysis based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, in my view, the Officer was obliged to—and failed to—reasonably grapple with the systemic factors the Applicant faces as an Indigenous person as a key part of her submissions ( [NAME_9] at para 128). [ 35 ] The Officer recognized that the Applicant previously struggled with substance use and lacked strong family support. The Officer acknowledged the corroborative evidence showing a link between the challenges with mental health in Indigenous communities and intergenerational trauma from colonialization. However, the Officer does not grapple with the specific implications of these systemic challenges in the particular context of the Applicant, such as the Applicant’s experience in foster care throughout her childhood, or her parents’ substance abuse issues and their eventual passing. The Officer further does not acknowledge the Applicant’s relationship status at the time of her offences, which her counsel had described as recovering from an emotionally and physically abusive relationship. Instead, the Officer appears to find that the fact that the Applicant was a cheerleader in college means that her decisions were immunized from her challenging upbringing. [ 36 ] In my view, the Officer’s reasoning turns positive factors on their head ( [NAME_24] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 655 ( “ [NAME_24] ” ) at para 39). [ADDRESS] has previously found that where an officer ascribes positive weight to one attribute but then uses that attribute to undermine an applicant’s claim of hardship, such reasoning is unintelligible ( [NAME_25] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1633 ( “ [NAME_25] ” ) at paras 23, 27; [NAME_26] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 134 at para 8; [NAME_24] at paras 36-39; [NAME_29] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1280 at para 12). This principle upholds the compassionate approach taken within an analysis under subsection 25(1) of the IRPA, as to prevent the Applicant’s shield from becoming a sword in the Officer’s hands ( [NAME_25] at para 23; [NAME_14] at para 21; [NAME_31] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 511 at para 53; [NAME_32] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 226 at para 30). As such, although this principle developed to prevent an officer from using an applicant’s establishment in Canada to support that the applicant would not face hardship upon relocation, I find that this reasoning also applies to the compassionate approach required by the legal and factual context before me. [ 37 ] The Applicant submitted letters from her counsellor, certificates from recovery programs and her employment history to show her gradual recovery from the circumstances that led to her offences. The Officer accepts this evidence as showing the Applicant’s accountability and recovery from the circumstances leading to her offences, yet the Officer uses the Applicant’s employment history to undermine challenges she faced due to her background and upbringing. The fact that the Applicant has succeeded despite these challenges does not negate her hardship. [ 38 ] Effectively, the Officer’s reasoning penalizes the Applicant for overcoming numerous obstacles in her life and fails to understand recovery from intergenerational trauma as a non-linear process. In doing so, the Officer’s decision ignores key contextual factors at the time of the Applicant’s offence which were central elements of her request for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. [ 39 ] In this context, I find it worth noting that the Government of Canada’s commitment to reconciliation with [NAME_18] is common knowledge, including the recognition of rights, respect, and a commitment to strive to address past harms and continued iterations of colonialism in order to encourage renewed relationships. The Officer’s failure to engage with the principles of reconciliation, which were raised as a primary submission by the Applicant, siloes reconciliation to only certain administrative decisions, instead of understanding reconciliation as an effort undertaken by the whole of government.

V. Conclusion [ 40 ] For these reasons, I find that the Officer’s decision fails to reflect the applicable factual and legal constraints ( [NAME_9] at para 99). The issues within the Officer’s reasoning run deeper than merely their weighing of various considerations, rather it shows a lack of sensitivity to the Applicant and her children’s particular circumstances.

Accordingly, I allow this application for judicial review, with directions for imminent redetermination. [ 41 ] The parties did not raise a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-8194-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is allowed. This decision is sent back for redetermination by a different officer, this redetermination shall be completed and a decision issued to the Applicant no later than sixty (60) days from this Judgement. There is no question for certification. " [NAME_33]." Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-8194-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_2] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 3, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: AHMED J. DATED: June 15, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME_35] [NAME_38] [NAME_39] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME_43] and Solicitors Oakville, [NAME_38] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent