Federal Court Quashes Decision on Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds

Date: 20260619 Docket: IMM-13867-25 Citation: 2026 FC 838 Ottawa, Ontario, June 19, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants, [NAME] and her two children, [NAME] and [NAME], seek judicial review of a decision made by an officer (the “Officer” ), dated April 10, 2025, denying their application for permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [ 2 ] The Applicants submit that the Officer unduly required them to show exceptional circumstances and failed to reasonably assess the best interests of the children. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, I find the Officer’s decision is unreasonable. This application for judicial review is allowed.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Principal Applicant is a 42-year-old citizen of Mexico. The [NAME] are her minor children. [ 5 ] In December 2018, the Applicants arrived in Canada, along side the Principal Applicant’s [NAME] spouse, on visitor visas. These visas were extended, but, on [NAME] 17, 2022, the Applicants were ultimately left without status. [ 6 ] In September 2021, the Principal Applicant separated from her spouse. In January 2022, the Principal Applicant and [NAME] had an incident leading to police intervention. In March 2022, the Applicants moved to a shelter for individuals facing domestic or intimate partner violence. [ 7 ] In June 2022, the Applicants filed a refugee claim based on the threats that the Principal Applicant and [NAME] faced in Mexico. In a decision dated December 20, 2022, the Refugee Protection Division ( “[NAME]” ) refused the Applicants’ request for refugee protection. The [NAME] found that the Applicants had an internal flight alternative ( “IFA” ) in [NAME], Mexico, where they had lived for five years without receiving any threats before coming to Canada and where the Principal Applicant had family ties. [ 8 ] The Applicants appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division ( “[NAME]” ), but this application was not perfected and was consequently refused. The Applicants made an application for leave and judicial review of the [NAME]’s determination, but again this application was not perfected. [ 9 ] In February 2024, the Applicants filed an application for permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations ( “H&C Application” ). [ 10 ] In March 2024, the Applicants were scheduled to be removed to Mexico and sought a deferral of their removal. Although their request for a deferral of removal was refused, they received a stay of removal pending their application for judicial review of the deferral decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2024 FC 369). [ 11 ] In February 2025, the Applicants applied for a Pre-Removal Risk assessment ( “PRRA” ). On April 9, 2025, the Applicants’ PRRA was refused, and they have now filed an application for leave and judicial review before this Court in a separate proceeding. [ 12 ] In a decision dated April 10, 2025, the same Officer who determined the Applicants’ PRRA, refused the Applicants’ H&C Application. [ 13 ] In the reasons for their decision, the Officer first summarizes the Applicants’ immigration history in Canada and the submissions provided by the Applicants, including letters of support, school and event participation, country condition evidence, and evidence that the Principal Applicant was pregnant with her third child and was due to give birth in July 2025. [ 14 ] The Officer then notes the Applicants’ submissions regarding the best interests of the children, the positive impacts of remaining in Canada and the potentially adverse impacts of returning to Mexico given the children have spent the majority of their lives in Canada. The Officer acknowledges that the Principal Applicant’s daughter, [NAME], was receiving support from a counsellor with a psychology degree who was based in Mexico due to her symptoms of anxiety and stress. The Officer further notes that the Applicants provided country condition articles that discuss the low ranking of the education system in Mexico. However, the Officer reasons that, because the Applicants have not proven that they are racialized or individuals of a lower class, they would not lack access to education, especially considering that their mother received a chemical engineering degree in Mexico. [ 15 ] In the Officer’s global assessment of the humanitarian and compassionate factors, they state that they consider each element individually and cumulatively. The Officer considers the Applicants’ submissions regarding their return to Mexico and accepts their submissions regarding the dangers in Mexico due to the mistreatment of women, femicides, disappearances, and sexual violence. But the Officer ultimately notes that they found [NAME] to be safe when assessing the Applicants’ PRRA. [ 16 ] As part of the Officer’s global assessment, they also consider the hardship the Principal Applicant [NAME] face as a female head of household in Mexico. The Officer accepts the Applicants’ submissions that women in Mexico encounter difficulties but notes that the Principal Applicant’s particular circumstances show that she is highly educated and worked in [NAME] and in Canada. The Officer states they are sympathetic to the Principal Applicant’s situation as a woman but determines that women in all countries face decisions about risks and avoiding problems. [ 17 ] After noting the differences between Canada and Mexico’s social services, the Officer concludes that permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations is “unusual protection for people with special circumstances” and that “insufficient factors that warrant exceptional consideration have been adduced for this application.” 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 Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 ( “ Vavilov ” ). I agree. [ 20 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( Vavilov 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 ( Vavilov 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 ( Vavilov 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 ( Vavilov 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 ( Vavilov 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 ( Vavilov at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( Vavilov at para 100).

IV. Analysis [ 22 ] As a preliminary note, at the hearing the Applicants abandoned their submissions regarding a remittal of the Officer’s decision based on the Officer’s failure to analyze the Applicants’ alternative request for temporary resident permits ( “TRP” ) if their H&C Application was denied. Nevertheless, the Respondent maintained that it was a reviewable error for the Officer to fail to engage with the Applicants’ TRP request and submitted that this Court should remit the matter only on this issue while upholding the remaining portion of the decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1817 at paras 15-16). [ 23 ] As I have concluded that the entirety of the decision should be remitted, I do not find it necessary to determine whether the Officer’s failure to address the Applicants’ TRP request would be sufficient by itself to remit the whole of the Officer’s decision. A. Failure to Account for the Best Interests of the Children [ 24 ] The Applicants submit that the Officer’s analysis fails to identify and weigh [NAME]’s and [NAME]’s best interests, making limited and unreasonable findings only on their education opportunities in Mexico. The Applicants rely on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 298 ( “ [NAME] ” ) to submit that the Officer simply stated [NAME] and [NAME]’s submissions regarding their interests but failed to account for their interests in the global assessment of the competing factors within the humanitarian and compassionate analysis. Additionally, the Applicants submit that the Officer failed to engage with how [NAME] is particularly affected, uniquely from her mother, as a girl in Mexico given the evidence submitted regarding gender-based violence and discrimination. [ 25 ] The Respondent submits that the Officer identified and considered the best interests of the children, including their education and medical services alongside the hardship they [NAME] face upon leaving Canada. The Respondent further submits that the Officer, although they did not explicitly mention the best interests of the children in their global assessment, considered and weighed these interests in reaching their determination. The Respondent further maintains that the Officer considered the overall situation of women and girls in Mexico and was not required to apply this analysis with specificity to [NAME] because the Applicants had not provided explicit submissions on the particular effect of gender-based violence on [NAME]. [ 26 ] I disagree. In my view, the Officer did not reasonably grapple with the children’s best interests. [ 27 ] Considering the best interests of the children is not just another factor within an analysis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Its importance should lead officers to give it substantial weight in their analysis ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 SCC 61 ( “ [NAME] ” ) 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] at para 39). This is an analysis that demands specificity, accounting for the child’s age, needs and maturity ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 325 ( “ [NAME] ” ) at para 8). As part of the contextual demands of this analysis, officers must assess children’s interests apart from their parents and account for how hardship [NAME] affect children differently than their parents ( [NAME] at para 41; [NAME] at para 9). I hasten to note that there is no specific formula for an officer to account for the best interests of the children so long as their reasoning reflects an analysis that is alert, alive, and sensitive to the children’s best interests ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 363 at paras 34-35; [NAME] at para 38). [ 28 ] I have previously found that officers assessing humanitarian and compassionate grounds err where they assess the basic needs of the children instead of their best interests ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1160 ( “ [NAME] ” ) at para 22). [ADDRESS] has repeated such findings where the officer focuses unduly on meeting the child’s needs rather than determining how their interests would be best served ( [NAME] at para 22). [ 29 ] The Officer in the case before me did conduct an analysis of educational services available for the children. However, this analysis appears to determine that the education system in Mexico would meet the basic needs of the children without engaging in their particular context or best interests. The Officer mentions that Mexico was ranked last in education amongst 35 countries. But the Officer appears to attribute this low status to inequality in Mexico related to nutrition, transportation, and racial differences. They conclude that, because the Applicants have not demonstrated that they are racialized or lower class, and their mother has a high level of education, the children would not face difficulty in attaining similar opportunities. [ 30 ] In my view, the Officer errs in this analysis in a similar way as the underlying decision in [NAME] . In that case, my colleague Justice McDonald found that the officer unreasonably assessed the best interests of the child because the officer assumed that the child could easily learn Spanish upon returning to Mexico given his young age ( [NAME] at paras 19, 22). Similarly, I note that [NAME] came to Canada at just one year old and the Applicants submitted that he does not know Spanish. [NAME] has also experienced nearly all of her schooling in Canada. At the hearing, the Respondent attempted to distinguish this case from [NAME] because the Officer in this case did not make a finding that returning to Mexico was in the children’s best interest. But I cannot agree with the Respondent’s submission on this point. The [NAME] not have explicitly stated that it was in the children’s best interests to return to Mexico, but the Officer’s analysis shows a similar lack of engagement as the officer in [NAME] with the circumstances of the children that would make returning to Mexico particularly difficult. Despite the Officer recognizing the children’s establishment in Canada and their lack of familiarity with Mexico, the Officer’s reasoning fails to show how these specific circumstances would affect the children’s best interests. The Officer’s presumption that the children will have the opportunity to receive the high level of education that their mother received fails to engage with the specific context of the children and how their circumstance differs from that of their mother. [ 31 ] Regarding the medical concerns raised by the Applicants, the Officer notes the report from a counsellor who has been assisting [NAME] remotely from Mexico to address her anxiety symptoms. The Officer quotes the counsellor’s statement that sudden changes in [NAME]’s environment and relationships would not be recommended given her situation. The Officer then does not mention or grapple with whether the disruption to [NAME]’s environment upon removal from Canada would be in her best interests. The only mention of [NAME]’s treatment or mental health needs is with regards to her mother’s panic attacks and the possibility that the Principal Applicant could receive mental health treatment in Mexico given her daughter is attending a counsellor in the country. [ 32 ] [NAME] affirmed, and this Court reiterated that, where a mental health diagnosis is accepted, the fact that an individual’s mental health would likely worsen if they were removed to their country of origin is a relevant consideration that must be identified and weighed regardless of whether there is treatment available in that country ( [NAME] at para 48; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 776 at para 27). However, this principle does not mean that every adverse mental health condition that would be exacerbated upon relocation should be weighed heavily ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1416 at paras 27-28; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 461 at paras 27-29). In this case, given the limited evidence available regarding [NAME]’s diagnosis or condition, it [NAME] well have been reasonable for the Officer to assess and determine that her mental health condition did not outweigh other factors. However, the Officer’s failure to discuss or make any findings regarding its impact on [NAME]’s best interest prevents their decision from reflecting the requisite level of transparency for a reasonable decision. [ 33 ] I further agree with the Applicants that the Officer failed to analyze both how the Principal Applicant and [NAME] be affected differently by gender-based violence and discrimination in Mexico. In the Officer’s global analysis, they state explicitly that they are assessing the possible issues facing the Principal Applicant as a female head of household. The Officer goes on to recognize that women face difficulties in work, housing, and social acceptance in Mexico. These are all factors that do not affect [NAME] in the same way as her mother. I repeat the well-established principles that circumstances that do not warrant a humanitarian and compassionate relief for an adult [NAME] well warrant such relief for a child, and that a child’s best interests must reflect their age and gender ( [NAME] at paras 40-41; [NAME] at para 9). Although the Officer was not required to analyze in specific detail each argument raised by the Applicants, the Officer’s reasoning must reflect a sensitivity towards how [NAME] be affected by gender-based violence or discrimination, apart from the impacts on her mother. [ 34 ] Moreover, and contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the Officer’s failure to mention the best interests of the children in their global analysis is not simply a technical oversight. The Applicants raised explicitly and in great detail how the best interests of the children would be affected by their removal to Mexico. Yet, the Officer’s reasoning does not reflect these submissions, relying instead on information regarding meeting the children’s basic needs for education and medical attention. The Officer does not discuss the weight attributed to the best interests of the children or how they are counterbalanced. It is possible, as the Officer notes, that the best interests of the children do not always outweigh competing factors ( [NAME] at para 38). But in order for them to do so, the Officer must transparently, intelligibly, and justifiably engage with the children’s best interests and articulate with a great deal of attention how they are assessed ( Vavilov at para 15; [NAME] at para 39). The complete lack of any analysis regarding the weighing of the children’s best interests, on its own, is sufficient to render this decision unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 26). B. Requirement of “Special Circumstances” [ 35 ] At the hearing, the Applicants focused on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1046 ( “ [NAME] ” ), to submit that the concluding paragraph of the Officer’s decision required the Applicants to show exceptional circumstances in order to warrant humanitarian and compassionate relief. [ 36 ] The Respondent submits that the Officer’s reference to “special circumstances” in their concluding paragraph is not indicative of the Officer’s overall reasoning, which did not require the Applicants to show exceptional circumstances. The Respondent also submits that the Officer’s reference to “special circumstances” and factors that warrant “exceptional consideration” refer to the nature of the relief sought rather than setting an elevated threshold for granting the relief the Applicants requested. [ 37 ] It is well established that exceptional hardship or establishment are not required for applicants to receive humanitarian and compassionate relief ( [NAME] at para 41). Instead, the test under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, is whether, understanding that relief from the rigidity of the law is exceptional, the particular circumstances of the applicants would excite a reasonable person in a civilized community a desire to relieve these misfortunes ( [NAME] at para 21; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1482 at para 19). [ 38 ] In my view, the Officer did not simply view relief based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations as an exception to Canada’s immigration laws, but they also improperly required the Applicants to show exceptional circumstances. This is especially clear given the formulation of the Officer’s sentence, which characterizes humanitarian and compassionate relief as a protection for people with “special circumstances” separately and in addition to their description of humanitarian and compassionate relief as “unusual protection.” [ 39 ] Likewise, I find that the Officer’s statement is not one sentence in isolation. Rather, as in [NAME] , the Officer’s description of the legal framework as requiring “special circumstances” reflects the overarching framework that the Officer applied throughout their analysis ( [NAME] at paras 18-20). [ 40 ] For instance, the Officer implicitly required the Applicants to show exceptional circumstances through their comparison between the hardships faced by the Principal Applicant and other women. In the Officer’s reasons, they acknowledge the Principal Applicant’s submission that she faces fear of violence and discrimination along with other difficulties because she would be a female head of household in Mexico. However, the Officer determines that the Principal Applicant is highly educated and previously worked as a quality control supervisor in a [NAME]. Without referring to any evidence in particular, the Officer then finds that “every aspect of life as a woman includes decisions about risk and avoiding potential problems” and that these aspects exist in all countries. The Officer therefore concludes that the Applicants do not fall into the flexible parameters of circumstances that could lead to an approval of their application. [ 41 ] The Applicants submit that this analysis required the Principal Applicant to be exceptionally affected by gender-based violence or discrimination as compared to others globally. The Respondent relies on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1365 at paragraph 30, to submit that it is not an error for the Officer to consider the Applicants’ position in Mexico as compared to others globally. I agree that comparison, in itself, does not necessarily mean that the Officer applied an unduly high standard for the Applicants to show humanitarian and compassionate considerations. Still, comparison in humanitarian and compassionate considerations [NAME] prompt officers to apply an implicit requirement that an applicant show that their circumstances are exceptional relative to others ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 208 at paras 49-50). [ 42 ] In this case, the Officer’s reasons fail to avoid this pitfall. The Officer compares the Principal Applicant’s risk as a woman and determines that it is insufficient because all women’s lives include decisions about risks and avoiding problems. This broad statement fails to engage with any of the evidence on the record and necessarily requires the Principal Applicant to show more fear or risk relative to other women globally. In this sense, the Officer’s reasoning fails to uphold the flexibility within the legislative design by requiring the Applicants to show exceptional circumstances. [ 43 ] The Respondent submitted at the hearing that the Officer found that the Principal Applicant’s circumstances differed from those in Mexico who face gender-based violence and discrimination. In fact, the Officer appears to conclude that the Principal Applicant will not face the same difficulties as other women in Mexico because she has a chemical engineering degree and has past work experience. However, as was raised at the hearing, there was evidence on the record before the Officer that women in the same field as the Principal Applicant face discrimination in their work environment. Indeed, I find that having a good education and work experience does not immunize the Principal Applicant from gender-based violence and discrimination, and I consequently conclude that the Officer’s reasoning on this point fails to show a rational chain of analysis. C. The Officer Imported their PRRA Analysis [ 44 ] The Applicants submit that the Officer erred in referencing their PRRA determination in their decision regarding the Applicants’ permanent residency for humanitarian and compassionate factors. Specifically, the Applicants submit that the Officer’s reference to the PRRA decision, which they submit is unreasonable, renders the decision on their H&C Application unreasonable as well. The Applicants further submit that the Officer’s references to the PRRA determination led the Officer to assess whether the Applicants faced a personalized risk rather than assess the relevant humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [ 45 ] The Respondent submits that the Officer did not rely on their PRRA findings to reach their conclusion regarding the Applicants’ H&C Application. Rather, the Respondent submits that the Officer referenced their PRRA determination but did not rely on it, as shown by the Officer’s reference to numerous other humanitarian and compassionate factors. [ 46 ] As the matter of whether the PRRA determination is reasonable is not before me, I do not make any findings as to its reasonableness. [ 47 ] However, I do find that the Officer erred in applying their findings directly from the PRRA determination to refute the Applicants’ submission regarding the general dangers in Mexico. The Officer noted the Applicants’ submissions regarding country conditions showing femicides, sexual violence, and disappearances, but the Officer concludes that the Applicants have an IFA in [NAME] and that they had recently determined that the IFA in [NAME] continued to exist. The legal threshold for a viable IFA is very different from considering criminality in a country of origin within an assessment of humanitarian and compassionate considerations ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 410 at paras 20, 23). The Officer’s direct importing of their PRRA determination, without engaging with the differences in the applicable legal framework further undermines the reasonableness of this decision.

V. Conclusion [ 48 ] For the reasons above, I find that the Officer’s decision fails to reflect the applicable legal and factual constraints ( Vavilov at paras 85, 99). As such, this application for judicial review is allowed. [ 49 ] The parties did not raise any question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-13867-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is allowed. The underlying decision is quashed and the matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question to certify. "[NAME]." Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-13867-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: [NAME] 28, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: AHMED J. DATED: june 19, 2026 APPEARANCES: Jared Will For The ApplicantS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent