Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Challenge to IRCC Exemption Denial

Date: 20260622 Docket: IMM-10820-25 Citation: 2026 FC 849 Ottawa, Ontario, June 22, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEE AND CITIZENSHIP, a/s MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a February 27, 2025, decision [the Decision] made by an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] senior immigration officer [the Officer] that rejected the Applicant’s application for an exemption pursuant to section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA ], on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [[NAME]]. [ 2 ] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because the Applicant’s [NAME] should have been considered as “remarkable” rather than “typical” , and that the Applicant’s [NAME] in Canada should be sufficient to justify the exemption sought. The Officer considered the factors and the evidence submitted and determined the Applicant’s [NAME] in Canada was a positive factor but not a determinative one considering the remainder of the factors, and that the Applicant had been found to have an internal flight alternative [IFA] in India. [ 3 ] Having considered the record before the Court, as well as the arguments made by the parties during the hearing, I conclude that the Applicant has not established that the Decision is unreasonable or ought to be disturbed. The Officer’s Decision is logical, coherent and intelligible in relation to the factual and legal constraints that acted upon them. The Applicant’s application is therefore dismissed for the reasons that follow.

II. Background [ 4 ] This judgment is being released contemporaneously with the Court’s judgment in docket IMM-10814-25 (2026 FC 848). That judgment dismissed the Applicant’s application for judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA] application that had been filed on November 13, 2024. While the records submitted by the Applicant for his [NAME] applications are not identical, they share substantial overlap with respect to the risks the Applicant says he faces if he returns to India. They are identical with respect to the Applicant’s refugee claim history and are nearly identical with respect to the Applicant’s attempts to demonstrate that the RPD’s and RAD’s findings regarding the availability of an IFA in India are no longer reasonable. The Applicant nevertheless submitted a number of documents in support of his [NAME] application that are specific to his [NAME] application and are not found in his PRRA application materials. [ 5 ] The Applicant is a citizen of India where he had operated a flour mill next to his family’s farm in Village Kheri, Sangrur District, Punjab, India, prior to arriving in Canada. Village Kheri is more than 1600 kilometers from Mumbai. The Applicant’s spouse and children remain in India. [ 6 ] The Applicant arrived in Canada on February 1, 2018, and made a refugee claim soon after his arrival. His refugee claim was based on his alleged risk at the hands of local police and of two drug dealers who were alleged to be local leaders of the ruling [NAME]. The Applicant had reported the drug dealers’ criminal activity and denounced them. The Applicant had alleged, among others, that he was perceived as, and falsely accused of being, an activist and/or militant. He feared the two drug dealers and the local police. [ 7 ] The [NAME] that heard the Applicant’s refugee claim found that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA . The determinative issue for the RPD was that the Applicant had an IFA available in Mumbai. The RPD found that some of the Applicant’s testimony was credible, but that he had fabricated key portions of his evidence. The RPD doubted the truthfulness of the Applicant’s testimony regarding some of the events that he alleged had transpired in India. [ 8 ] The Applicant appealed the RPD decision to the RAD. The RAD considered the Applicant’s evidence and arguments and found that he had not established that he was a person of interest for the police in India, and, that the local police, whom he alleged to be his agent of harm, had neither the motivation nor the means to locate him in the IFA location. The RAD agreed with the RPD that the Applicant had not established that the proposed IFA was unreasonable. [ 9 ] The Applicant’s application for leave and judicial review of the RAD decision was dismissed by the Federal Court. [ 10 ] The Applicant filed his [NAME] application September 29, 2023. The application included a number of documents in support of his [NAME] in Canada. Some of these documents were directed to his financial [NAME] in Canada and included a letter of employment, paystubs, leases, corporate tax returns for a [NAME], among others. Other documents were directed at his social [NAME] in Canada and included copies of his proofs of enrollment in language and vocational training, charitable donation receipts and letters of support from various persons the Applicant interacted with as an employee working full-time as a truck driver and part-time as a support worker in a [NAME]. The Applicant also submitted a limited number of documents pertaining to the best interests of his children in India and how he contributes to their support. [ 11 ] The Applicant filed supplementary [NAME] affidavit evidence, documents and submissions in November 2024. The supplementary documents are the same documents he filed in support of his PRRA application. The supplementary affidavit evidence indicated that, following his arrival in Canada, he came to the attention of the Punjab police in India after transferring the equivalent of CAD $2,580.06 CAD to his friend [NAME] in Village Kheri by way of three electronic money transfers in March and April 2023. According to the Applicant, the funds were sent to support farmers’ protests against minimum-wage and crop deregulation measures that he considered unfair and detrimental to farmers. [ 12 ] The Applicant deposed that the trouble he would face upon return to India would be compounded because he was already known by the police to be involved in activist causes. His evidence to support his argument was that the police visited his father’s house on May 6, 2024, more than one year after his money transfers to his friend, after they learned of his financial support of the farmer protests. The local police communicated menacing intentions to his father and threatened that they would harm the Applicant because they claimed that he worked against the government. The Applicant’s father suffered a heart attack some time later and was hospitalized. The Applicant deposed that he is afraid for his father, his friends, his wife and his children, and suffers stress as a result. [ 13 ] The Applicant filed additional affidavit evidence from his father, his spouse, his friend [NAME], his local Gurudwara president, as well as medical evidence regarding his father’s heart attack, proof of his three money transfers, various news reports and articles regarding the farmer protests. He also filed various reports regarding arbitrary detention and torture in India, a report from the [NAME] and, and opinions from the United Nation Human Rights Council, none of which involve the Applicant personally. [ 14 ] More importantly, the Applicant argued that the RAD and the RPD’s findings were not to be relied upon because “no real and reasonable IFA exists for someone like” him.

III. The Decision [ 15 ] The Officer acknowledged that the Applicant had made an unsuccessful refugee claim in which he alleged being exposed to a risk in India due to having reported criminal activity and being perceived as an activist and/or militant. [ 16 ] The Officer also acknowledged that the RPD and the RAD had found that the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA because both had found that the Applicant had a viable IFA from the local Village Kheri police in Mumbai. [ 17 ] The Officer also noted that the Applicant had sought and was denied leave for judicial review of the RAD decision. [ 18 ] The Officer explicitly considered the entirety of the Applicant’s submitted evidence, documents and submissions with respect to: a) his [NAME] in Canada; b) country conditions in India; c) the RPD and RAD decisions that rejected his refugee claim and whether the IFA remained reasonable; d) whether the Applicant’s support of farmer protests in India gave rise to a new risk or hardship for the Applicant in the IFA due to his profile in India and in the IFA location; and e) the best interests of the Applicant’s children who remain in India with the Applicant’s spouse. A. [NAME] evidence and the assignment of positive weight [ 19 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence and assigned that evidence positive weight “given how hard he is working and given his involvement in the community” , within the Officer’s overall consideration of all of the [NAME] factors. [ 20 ] The Officer took note of the Applicant’s submission that he has a “remarkable economic and social [NAME] in Canada”. [ 21 ] The Officer explored the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence including his employment as a subcontractor and truck driver for a [COMPANY] since September 2021, where he worked approximately 60 hours per week, as well as his employment as a caregiver for senior citizens at a [NAME] since September 2023. The Officer explicitly acknowledged the Applicant’s involvement in the greater community through social activities and through charitable donations and volunteering. The Officer also considered that the Applicant has been self-supporting since his arrival in Canada, has no criminal record, and had taken steps to improve his language skills in English and in French. B. Country condition evidence and the Applicant’s profile are given minimal weight [ 22 ] The Officer considered the country conditions in India generally as well as discrete country condition articles submitted by the Applicant with respect to farmer protests in India, the authorities’ reported reactions to them, and whether the Applicant’s alleged profile in India reflected a personal connection between the Applicant and the country conditions. The Officer concluded that the country condition evidence be given minimal weight in the overall assessment and explained why they came to that conclusion. [ 23 ] The Officer considered the basis of the Applicant’s refugee claim as explained in his affidavit evidence, as well as the Applicant’s supplementary evidence that he had come to the attention of Indian police in the Punjab in May 2024 following his financial support for farmer protests in March and April 2023. The Officer also considered how the Applicant’s 2023 financial support of farmer protests and the interaction between Village Kheri police and his father may have changed whether the IFA found by the RPD and RAD remained viable due to hardship in relocation. C. The RPD and RAD findings as to IFA are given considerable weight, and the IFA remains viable [ 24 ] The Officer explicitly considered the RPD and the RAD decisions and their content. [ 25 ] The Officer remarked that both the RPD and the RAD had considered and found that the local Village Kheri police had neither the motivation nor the means to find the Applicant if he returned to India in the IFA. The Officer acknowledged that the assessment of risk in a refugee claim and on an [NAME] application are different and that the latter is framed in a global assessment of a number of factors, including hardship and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The Officer found that the RPD and RAD findings were relevant to the [NAME] application, considered them, and decided the [NAME] application independently of the RPD and RAD findings. [ 26 ] The Officer nevertheless gave significant weight to the RPD and RAD findings of a viable IFA and explained why they did so. D. The Applicant’s support of farmer protests did not make the IFA unreasonable or unavailable [ 27 ] The Officer found that the Applicant had provided insufficient evidence to establish that an error had been made, legal or otherwise, in the RPD and RAD finding that the IFA identified was reasonable after having considered the Applicant’s evidence of his financial contribution to farmer protests in 2023 and his arguments to the contrary. [ 28 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s evidence regarding his financial support of farmer protests in India and the local police visits to his father’s house in Village Kheri but remained unsatisfied that these new developments established that the Village Kheri police had developed the means or the ability to track the Applicant in the IFA. [ 29 ] The Officer considered the evidence, including the Applicant’s profile, and concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Applicant had come to the broader attention of law enforcement in India due to his activities either prior to or since his arrival in Canada. Based on all the information before them, the Officer was satisfied that relocation to the IFA remained available to the Applicant. [ 30 ] Similarly, while the Officer acknowledged that there had been significant human rights abuses committed in India and corruption in the suppression of farmer protests, the Officer acknowledged that the difficulties the Applicant had experienced was with the Village Kheri police and that his profile, as it was, had not made the IFA unavailable to him. E. The best interests of the children were given minimal weight [ 31 ] The Officer considered the best interests of the Applicant’s children. The Officer considered the evidence submitted by the Applicant with respect to his support of his children from a distance as well as the letters from the children themselves. The Officer considered the Applicant’s evidence that his presence in India would put his children in danger. The Officer acknowledged that it is likely in the children’s best interest to be reunited with their father, although not necessarily in Canada. Because it was possible that the Applicant would have to relocate to the IFA, having the Applicant’s children join him in Canada only to relocate to the IFA would not be in their best interests. The Officer was not satisfied that the best interests of the children would be compromised if the Applicant returned to India in the IFA location, or if they needed to relocate to the IFA to be with him. The Officer therefore gave minimal weight to the best interests of the children in his determination of the [NAME] application. [ 32 ] The Officer was not satisfied that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to justify granting the applicant’s [NAME] application and refused it.

IV. The Issue [ 33 ] The sole issue before the Court is whether the Decision is reasonable.

V. The Standard of Review [ 34 ] The parties agree that the applicable standard of review is the reasonableness standard of review. [ 35 ] The reasonableness standard of review was explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ]. The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the analytical approach set out in [NAME] in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7-8 as follows: [7] In [NAME] , this Court revised the framework for determining the standard of review. [ADDRESS] established a presumption that the standard of review of the merits of an administrative decision is reasonableness, subject to limited exceptions based on legislative intent or when required by the rule of law (paras. 10 and 17). The revised framework seeks to maintain the rule of law, while respecting a legislature’s intent to entrust certain decisions to administrative decision makers rather than courts (paras. 2 and 14). It also aims to bring simplicity, coherence, and predictability to the law on the standard of review and to eliminate the unwieldy exercise of determining the standard of review based on contextual factors, as had been required by this Court’s jurisprudence following [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 ( [NAME] , at paras. 7 and 10). [8] [NAME] also explained how a court should conduct reasonableness review. [ADDRESS] stressed that reasonableness review and correctness review are methodologically distinct (para. 12). Reasonableness review starts from a posture of judicial restraint and focusses on “the decision the administrative decision maker actually made, including the justification offered for it, and not on the conclusion the court itself would have reached in the administrative decision maker’s place” (paras. 15 and 24). When an administrative decision maker is required to provide reasons for its decision, reasonableness review requires a “sensitive and respectful, but robust” evaluation of the reasons provided (para. 12). A reviewing court must take a “reasons first” approach that evaluates the administrative decision maker’s justification for its decision (para. 84). An administrative decision will be reasonable if it “is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (para. 85). [ADDRESS] also affirmed “the need to develop and strengthen a culture of justification in administrative decision making” (para. 2). [ 36 ] It is the Applicant’s onus to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” ( [NAME] at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker ( [NAME] at para 125; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at paras 2 and 3).

VI. Arguments and Analysis [ 37 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable as a whole. He submits more particularly that that the Decision is unreasonable because: it gives minimal weight to the Applicant’s strong [NAME] in Canada; it completely disregards his contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic; it applies an incorrect legal test concerning his hardships; and it errs by stating there is insufficient evidence. [ 38 ] Each of these arguments entail sub-arguments that will be considered below. A. The Officer gave positive, not minimal, weight to the Applicant’s [NAME] in Canada (1) Assignment of weight [ 39 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer gave the Applicant’s [NAME] in Canada minimal weight in his consideration without valid justification. [ 40 ] The Applicant misstates the Decision and its contents. The Officer mentioned on several occasions in the Decision that they were giving the Applicant’s [NAME] in Canada positive weight without any suggestion that the positive weight was minimal. [ 41 ] The Applicant’s misreading and mischaracterization of the Officer’s findings and assignment of weight is sufficient on its own to reject much of the Applicant’s argument, but there is more to consider given the Applicant’s arguments. (2) The assessment and qualification of the Applicant’s [NAME] as typical is not unreasonable [ 42 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer erred by assessing the [NAME] evidence led and by concluding that the Applicant had a “typical level of [NAME] and integration” in Canada rather than the “remarkable” level of [NAME] he argued for. The Applicant also argues that the Officer’s “limited weight assigned to the [NAME]” factor was unreasonable and does not explain why the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence was not determinative of his [NAME] application. [ 43 ] The substance of the Applicant’s argument is that he disagrees with the Officer’s assessment of the [NAME] evidence presented and of the weight assigned to each factor considered in the overall assessment of his [NAME] application. The Applicant’s argument reflects that he disagrees with the Officer’s assessment that his [NAME] evidence was more important or compelling in their assessment of all of the [NAME] factors required to be considered by [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 SCC 61 [ [NAME] ]. [ 44 ] The Officer considered the [NAME] and other evidence submitted and explicitly referred to its key facets in the Decision. The Officer was not required to discuss every piece of evidence or address every argument or line of possible analysis advanced by the Applicant in the Decision ( [NAME] at para 128). The Officer explained that they considered the duration of time the Applicant has been in Canada, his employment as a truck driver, his employment as a caregiver for senior citizens, the letter of support submitted by his employers, his paystubs, tax documents, bank statements, his donations to social organizations, this volunteerism in the community, and the letters of support from various persons within the community that indicate that the Applicant is well-respected. These components of the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence were given positive weight “given how hard he is working and given his involvement in the community”. [ 45 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence that he has been self-supporting, has a clean record, has close connections within the community and has taken steps to improve his language skills. The Officer assessed the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence and was satisfied that he demonstrated what the Officer considered as a typical level of [NAME] and integration as it pertained to his sound fiscal management, civil record, community involvement, employment ventures and relationships. [ 46 ] The Officer explicitly considered the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence in light of the evidence regarding what the Applicant would be returning to in India. The Officer considered that the Applicant had lived and worked in India for many years prior to arriving in Canada, that his close, immediate and extended family all lived there, and that his knowledge of the local languages and customs would aid his reintegration. [ 47 ] The Officer did not find that the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence, while positive, was determinative of the outcome of his [NAME] application because of their assessment and weighing of the other factors considered. [ 48 ] The Applicant relies upon [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 2095 [ [NAME] ] and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 679 [ [NAME] ] in support of his argument that the Officer’s assignment of limited weight to the [NAME] evidence and the Officer’s statement that the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence was not determinative of the outcome of the application was unreasonable because it was not justified. [ 49 ] The Applicant candidly remarked during the hearing that the decision in [NAME] is an outlier decision in some respects and might not necessarily be consistent with this Court’s jurisprudence on the matter of [NAME] evidence and how it should be considered. I agree. However, I do not read [NAME] as standing for a proposition other than that an officer determining an [NAME] application must reasonably justify their weighting of the evidence led before them and cannot fetter their discretion. [ 50 ] The Officer here explained and justified their assignment of weight to the Applicant’s [NAME] evidence and how the [NAME] evidence was weighed in their consideration of the relevant factors to be considered. [NAME] and [NAME] , both being cases concerned with an absence of justification, are therefore distinguishable and do not apply. [ 51 ] While there are situations where an officer’s finding that an applicant’s [NAME] evidence reflects a “typical” degree of [NAME] has been found unreasonable because it suggests that an applicant must establish an “exceptional” degree of [NAME] ( [NAME] at paras 13-14, 106-107; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1158 at paras 20-21; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2021 FC 1482, at paras 23-24), comparing an applicant’s degree of [NAME] with others in a similar situation is not always prohibited. It is permissible and does not render a decision unreasonable on its own if the officer engaging in the comparison is nevertheless alive to the requirement that they must engage in a fact-specific exercise that is being conducted “as a whole” and does not lead to requiring “exceptional” [NAME] ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1427 at paras 29-30; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 828 at paras 53-57; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 642 at paras 12-13 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 799 at paras 53-55 ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1280 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1158 at para 21). As was well said by Madam Justice Turley in [NAME] at paragraph 13, “simply characterizing an applicant’s level of [NAME] as “usual,” “ordinary,” or “common” is insufficient to vitiate an officer’s decision.” The Officer’s use of the word “typical” is descriptive and does not purport to impose a legal test or higher burden on the Applicant. B. Contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic were not established [ 52 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer completely ignored the Applicant’s contributions to society during the COVID-19 pandemic. He argues more particularly that he delivered essential goods as a truck driver during the pandemic while most Canadians were confined to their homes and did not go to work, that his number of hours worked exceeds by double any normal Canadian work schedule and that he worked in the most valorized and strongly needed fields of work in Canada. [ 53 ] While these arguments might be attractive, they are not supported by the evidence in the record. [ 54 ] The evidence in the record is that the Applicant was employed as a truck driver for a [COMPANY] since February 1, 2021. His job duties were listed as operating and driving truck trailers to transport goods and materials over long distances, to perform vehicle pre-trip and post-trip inspections and otherwise tracking his travels. [ 55 ] There is no evidence at all in the record as to the goods the Applicant was transporting in his trailer, where they were being delivered to, if the transport was interprovincial, intraprovincial or local, or whether the material being transported constituted essential goods or otherwise. There is no evidence that the Applicant worked hours that “exceeded by double any normal Canadian work schedule” as argued, although it was noted and accepted by the Officer that the Applicant’s hours of work as a truck driver were approximately 60 hours per week. [ 56 ] There is also no evidence that the Applicant was an essential worker during the pandemic, or that the services he performed as a truck driver after September 1, 2021, were an essential service during the pandemic or at all. [ 57 ] Given the evidence in the record, the Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s evidence as presented was objective, rational and justified. [ 58 ] The Applicant also argues that the Officer failed to consider the Applicant’s employment in the [NAME] as a caregiver as enhancing his [NAME] evidence. The Applicant’s argument is factually incorrect. [ 59 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s work as a caregiver since September 17, 2023, although without the result the Applicant had argued for. The Applicant led no evidence to establish that he was a healthcare worker of any kind during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no evidence led to suggest that the Applicant was an essential worker as a caregiver during the COVID-19 pandemic, or whether the Applicant began his work during the COVID-19 pandemic at all. [ 60 ] The Officer’s decision is not unreasonable for having considered the evidence submitted for what it reflected despite the Applicant’s unsupported arguments advanced to increase the weight of the evidence presented. C. The Officer applied the correct legal test [ 61 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer applied an incorrect legal test by requiring the Applicant to demonstrate the absence of a viable IFA. The Applicant relies on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 185 [ [NAME] ] in support of his argument. [ 62 ] The Applicant’s argument is not supported by the record and misreads the Decision again. [ 63 ] The Officer identified and applied the correct legal test. The Officer correctly noted the important distinctions between the assessment of risk carried out by the RPD and the RAD and the assessment of humanitarian and compassionate factors on an [NAME] application and explicitly proceeded to a global assessment of a number of factors, including hardship and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [ 64 ] The Officer did not require the Applicant to demonstrate the absence of an IFA. The existence of an IFA was part of the factual matrix the Applicant had to contend with. [ 65 ] The Officer considered that the previous finding of an IFA, with respect to the means and motivation of the same actors at issue in connection with the Applicant’s financial support for farmer protests, compelled the Applicant to establish some basis that he had come to the broader attention of [NAME] outside of Village Kheri as alleged, or that the local police in Village Kheri had developed the means and motivation to find him elsewhere in India due to his new financial support of farmer protests, and that he would suffer hardship as a result. The Applicant’s evidence failed to demonstrate that there were humanitarian or compassionate grounds against his relocation to India. [ 66 ] [NAME] , and the finding made therein, that the Officer in that case had considered reavailment findings by the RPD without accounting for the different legal test that applies on an [NAME] application, does not apply in the circumstances. D. The evidence led was insufficient to satisfy the Applicant’s burden [ 67 ] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the onus upon him. This argument is stated but not developed in any particular manner by the Applicant in his submissions beyond a pervasive undercurrent that the Applicant believed that his evidence was sufficient. [ 68 ] The Applicant’s belief in the strength of his evidence and his disagreement with the Officer’s consideration of that same evidence does not establish that the Decision is unreasonable. The Officer explained why the Applicant’s evidence as to certain [NAME] factors was insufficient in the Decision. The Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s evidence is justified, rational, intelligible and reasonable. [ 69 ] The Applicant’s last argument does not demonstrate that the Decision is unreasonable.

VII. Conclusions [ 70 ] The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable despite his disagreement with it. His application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed. [ 71 ] Neither party suggested that this proceeding involved a question of general importance that should be certified and none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-10820-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to be certified. No costs are awarded to any party. “Benoit M. Duchesne” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-10820-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEE AND CITIZENSHIP, a/s MINISTRY OF JUSTICE PLACE OF HEARING: MontrÉal, quÉbec DATE OF HEARING: march 26, 2026

REASONS aND

JUDGMENT: duchesne, j. DATED: june 22, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], Québec For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Québec For The Respondent