Federal Court Rejects Humanitarian and Compassionate Application for Permanent Residence

Date: 20260603 Docket: IMM-9086-24 Citation: 2026 FC 728 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 3, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] [NAME] is seeking judicial review of the refusal of her application for permanent residence [PR] based on humanitarian and compassionate [[NAME]] grounds. I am dismissing [NAME]’s application because she failed to show that the refusal decision was unreasonable or reached through an unfair process. My detailed reasons follow.

I. Background [ 2 ] [NAME] is a citizen of India. She first entered Canada in 2010 as a permanent resident with her ex-husband [NAME], but they divorced in 2012. After conducting an investigation, the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] found that [NAME] had failed to disclose that she was in a relationship with another individual, [NAME], whom she had married two days before signing her PR application. She has two Canadian-born children with him. The IAD concluded she had misrepresented her marital status to the Canadian authorities. As a result, [NAME]’s permanent residence status was revoked. [ 3 ] In January 2020, following a negative pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA] decision, [NAME] submitted her first [NAME] application. The application was refused in April 2020. [NAME] sought leave and judicial review of that decision, but the parties ultimately consented to it being set aside and remitted for redetermination. The application for judicial review was subsequently discontinued. [ 4 ] Following the remittal, [NAME] was invited to provide further written submissions. In support of her application, she made submissions on her establishment in Canada, the best interests of her two Canadian-born children, her ties to Canada, and the hardship she would face upon returning to India. [ 5 ] [NAME] second [NAME] application was dismissed. The officer gave partial weight to her establishment in Canada because there was little documentary evidence of her employment. In evaluating the hardships she would face upon removal, they considered that she was born and raised in India, spent 27 years there, and was employed as a registered nurse. Moreover, although the officer acknowledged that the letters submitted by [NAME]’s friends and family spoke positively of her, they found that the relationships she had established in Canada would not result in unusual hardship if she were separated from them. The officer further found little evidence that her ties to Canada would be substantially affected since she would be able to maintain those relationships from abroad and had the capacity to establish new ones in India. With respect to the children, the officer noted that they were not unfamiliar with India given their previous trips and that the differences between the Canadian and Indian educational systems were insufficient to justify relief. [ 6 ] [NAME] now seeks judicial review of the refusal of her second [NAME] decision. [ 7 ] It appears that [NAME] has already been removed to India. Shortly before the date scheduled for the hearing of this matter, her counsel tendered a notice of intention to represent herself signed by her and assured the Court that she was aware of the hearing. Counsel proposed that the matter be decided on the basis of the written submissions, and I agreed with this suggestion.

II. Analysis [ 8 ] [NAME] submits that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. I disagree. I address the two prongs of [NAME]’s submissions below. A. Reasonableness [ 9 ] An [NAME] decision is inherently discretionary. While the officer must consider and weigh all relevant factors, no fixed formula dictates the outcome. On judicial review, my role is not to reassess those factors or exercise the discretion entrusted to the decision-maker anew. Rather, it is to determine whether the officer meaningfully considered the relevant factors and afforded them appropriate weight. Applying the framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653, the decision must exhibit internally coherent reasoning and remain responsive to the applicable legal and factual constraints. Failing that, the decision is unreasonable and cannot stand. [ 10 ] In general terms, [NAME] submits that the officer failed to properly consider important factors relevant to her [NAME] application, including the best interests of the children [BIOC]. She argues that in doing so, the officer disregarded all the evidence in her favour. According to her, the officer should have found that the test for [NAME] relief is met. [ 11 ] These submissions do not show that the decision was unreasonable; rather, they simply amount to a call for this Court to reweigh the evidence. The officer engaged in an exhaustive assessment of all the factors [NAME] had submitted, as well as her unique personal circumstances. The officer carefully assessed each of the issues [NAME] had raised, including her degree of establishment in Canada, her family ties, the best interest of her two children, hardships she would face upon her return and country conditions in India. While the result is not what [NAME] hoped for, one can readily understand the reasoning behind the decision, and the officer did not disregard any legal or factual constraint. [ 12 ] This is also true in respect of the part of the officer’s reasons dealing with the BIOC. In particular, [NAME] faults the officer for relying on the children’s trips to India while they were toddlers. I do not think the officer overlooked the children’s age. Rather, they inferred from this that the children would not be completely unfamiliar with India. This is a reasonable inference. Moreover, the officer did not rely on this consideration alone. Rather, it formed part of a broader assessment of the children’s circumstances and their ability to adapt to life in India. [ 13 ] In sum, despite [NAME]’s submissions, the decision is reasonable. B. Procedural Fairness [ 14 ] [NAME] further takes issue with the officer’s statement that she provided insufficient evidence that it would be unsafe for her to reside in India as a single woman with young children. According to her, the officer should have given her a further opportunity to provide evidence, and the failure to do so would have amounted to a breach of procedural fairness. I disagree. [ 15 ] In an [NAME] application, the burden of proof falls on the applicant: [redacted] [ 16 ] In the present case, the officer did not rely on extrinsic evidence nor make veiled credibility findings that would have required [NAME] to be given a further opportunity to respond. Rather, the officer concluded that the evidence before them was insufficient to substantiate certain aspects of her claim regarding the hardship she would face in India as a single mother and the impact that hardship would have on her children. The officer was not required to give notice to [NAME]. There was no breach of procedural fairness.

III. Disposition [ 17 ] In summary, [NAME] has not convinced me that the refusal of her [NAME] application was unreasonable or the result of an unfair process. Thus, her application for judicial review will be dismissed.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9086-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-9086-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 3, 2026 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : [NAME] (self-represented) For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent