Federal Court Rejects Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds Application

Date: 20260708 Docket: IMM-25-25 Citation: 2026 FC 916 Ottawa, Ontario, July 8, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Ngo BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] For ease of reference and not out of disrespect, this judgment will refer to the Applicants by their names. The Applicants, [NAME] [[NAME]], [NAME] [[NAME]] and [NAME] [[NAME]] [collectively, the Applicants] seek judicial review of a decision by an officer of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [Officer] dated December 20, 2024. The Officer refused their application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [[NAME]] under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] [Decision]. [ 2 ] The Officer found that the Applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient establishment, hardship, or impact on the best interests of the child that would warrant relief based on [NAME] grounds. [ 3 ] For the reasons set out below, the application for judicial review is dismissed. While the Applicants’ situation is sympathetic, they have not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable.

II. Background and Decision Under Review [ 4 ] [NAME] is a citizen of Nigeria. He arrived in Canada on a work permit in 2018, where he began operating an e-commerce and payment logistics platform. [NAME], his spouse, and [NAME], the minor Applicant, are both citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. They joined [NAME] in Canada in 2019. [NAME] and [NAME] have a Canadian-born child, [NAME], who was born in 2019. [ 5 ] On October 25, 2023, the Applicants applied for [NAME]. They based their application on their establishment in Canada (focusing on [NAME]’s business), the best interests of their children [BIOC], and the hardship they would endure upon return to either Nigeria or Trinidad and Tobago. [ 6 ] The [NAME] application set out, among other things, that [NAME] owns and operates a business in Canada, and claims that he has had difficulty scaling its activities because of his lack of permanent status in the country. He claimed that he has made a significant investment in Canada through his business and has shown a pattern of sound financial management. On the question of BIOC and hardship, it highlighted the gender-based discrimination their daughter would suffer in either country, as well as the lower quality of education in Nigeria. [ 7 ] The Applicants further explained that [NAME]’s mother was killed in an attack on her church in Nigeria as part of a broader religious conflict in the country, and that they believe that uprooting their son from his life in Canada, for him to live in such an environment, would be detrimental to his development. The application more broadly identifies the high rates of violence and terrorist attacks in Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as challenges with access to healthcare in Nigeria. The Applicants and [NAME] had been evaluated by a psychotherapist, who recommended that it is in the best interest of the children to remain in Canada with their parents. [ 8 ] The Officer refused their [NAME] application on December 20, 2024, finding that the Applicants had not demonstrated sufficient establishment that would warrant exceptional relief. The Officer concluded that the Applicants had not provided sufficient evidence pertaining to the establishment, particularly in relation to [NAME]’s business operations and contributions to Canada. They found that removal would not impede [NAME] from continuing his business, as he could run it from abroad. The Decision assigns little weight to this element. There is little evidence that the Applicants have built relationships in Canada outside of family or business connections. [ 9 ] Second, the Officer considered the Applicants’ submissions on adverse country conditions and BIOC. The Officer summarized the Applicants’ submissions on the children’s well-being, and their interest in remaining in Canada. [NAME] claimed that there is an increase in violence and religious conflict between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. The Applicants submitted that in June 2022, there was an attack on [NAME]’s family’s church, and that his mother was killed. The Officer acknowledged the Applicants’ submissions that education is poor in Nigeria, and that women and girls experience discrimination and impediments to education, particularly in the North. The Officer considered the Applicants’ submissions on Trinidad and Tobago, which concern high rates of violence, particularly against women and girls. [ 10 ] The Decision then summarized a psychotherapist report, which described that the children were “constantly sick” in Trinidad and Tobago due to “Sahara Dust” storms, and that [NAME] developed asthma as a result. The report recommends that the children stay in Canada with both of their parents, who can provide for their psychological and physical wellbeing. [ 11 ] The Officer acknowledged the Applicants’ belief that Canada is safer for their family. They noted the attack on the [NAME]’s family’s church in Nigeria but concluded that there is no evidence that the Applicants could not move to a different city, further from the attacks, if they returned to Nigeria. They explained that there is no evidence of past attacks against the Applicants because of their religious beliefs, and that random acts of violence can happen anywhere. The Officer further noted that although evidence of Nigeria’s poor healthcare system was presented, there is no evidence that the Applicants suffer from a mental or physical illness for which they would be unable to obtain treatment in Nigeria, and which would require that they remain in Canada. The Officer considered that there was little evidence the Applicants were at risk or faced issues when [NAME] returned to Trinidad and Tobago with the children, and that there is no evidence that [NAME] would be unable to obtain treatment for asthma in the country. Moreover, there is no evidence that [NAME] would be unable to go to Trinidad and Tobago, based on his past visits. [ 12 ] On the BIOC, the Officer acknowledged the importance of the factor in the [NAME] assessment, although recognizing that it is not determinative. They conclude that while the children may have difficulty adjusting to life in whichever country they return to, “their parents will continue to provide them with love, care, and support to adjust to their new living situation” . Although there are challenges in accessing education in Nigeria, there is little evidence that [NAME] would be unable to help [NAME] obtain a good education. The Officer also highlighted that [NAME] was able to obtain a post-secondary education in Trinidad and Tobago, and that there is little evidence that she faced impediments in doing so. Her family will also help with adjusting to their return to Trinidad and Tobago. [ 13 ] The Officer further noted that although the children have made friends in Canada, there is little evidence that they would be unable to stay in contact with them via telecommunication means, or to return to visit them in Canada. The Officer concluded that section 25 of the IRPA is not intended to make up for the standard of living between Canada and other countries. Overall, they gave adverse generalized country conditions and the higher standards of living in Canada limited weight. In assessing the factors above in their globality, the Officer concluded that the [NAME] considerations do not warrant an exemption under subsection 25(1) of IRPA. [ 14 ] The Officer’s refusal of the [NAME] application is the subject of this application for judicial review.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 15 ] The issue before the Court is whether the Officer’s Decision was unreasonable, with the merits of the Decision to be reviewed on a reasonableness standard of review ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [ [NAME] ]). [ 16 ] On judicial review, the Court must consider whether a decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [NAME] at para 99). A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review ( [NAME] at para 90). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision-maker misapprehended the evidence before it ( [NAME] at paras 125-126). [ 17 ] The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100).

IV. Analysis [ 18 ] What warrants relief in an [NAME] application will vary depending on the facts and context of each case, but officers making [NAME] determinations must substantively consider and weigh all relevant facts and factors before them ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 773 at para 16, other citations omitted). The onus of establishing that a [NAME] exemption is warranted lies with the applicant ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FCA 189 at para 45). [ 19 ] In considering an [NAME] application, the Officer must consider whether the facts, established by the evidence, would excite in a reasonable person in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another — so long as these misfortunes “warrant the granting of special relief” from the effect of the provisions of the IRPA. The purpose of the [NAME] provision is to provide equitable relief in those circumstances ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61   at paras 13, 21 [ [NAME] ]). [ 20 ] The Applicant has identified a number of perceived flaws or issues with the Decision. However, as I will explain below, most of these arguments amount to either disagreeing with the Officer’s analysis, or seeking a reweighing of evidence, neither of which are grounds for granting judicial review ( [NAME] at para 125). Only the central arguments presented will be addressed below. [ 21 ] On judicial review, the reviewing court must adopt a “reasons-first” approach, considering whether the Officer’s reasons are justified, transparent, and intelligible in light of the records and legal constraints imposed upon them ( [NAME] at paras 84, 99). Judicial review is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error” , and courts must not create their own “yardstick” against which to measure the decision ( [NAME] at paras 83, 102). [ 22 ] The Applicants submitted that they should be granted [NAME] as a result of their establishment, the BIOC, and the hardship they would face in Nigeria or Trinidad and Tobago. The Applicants state that the Officer’s findings on their establishment are unreasonable, because the Officer did not explain how they reached their conclusions, did not attribute any significance to the cumulative weight of the Applicants’ circumstances, and failed to specify what type of business or relationship integration would have been sufficient. They further note that the Officer based their determination on a standard of “sufficient” integration, without clarifying what this standard entices. [ 23 ] Respectfully, I cannot agree with the Applicants’ arguments. The Decision considered the evidence provided to demonstrate establishment—the Applicants’ counsel’s submissions and a copy of [NAME]’s personal TD chequing and savings bank account. The Officer concluded they were not satisfied that the evidence provided “demonstrates that [[NAME]] has demonstrated a pattern of sound financial management or that his business is gaining revenue.” This conclusion is grounded in the factual record before the Officer, and it was open for the Officer to find that the evidence they were presented with was insufficient. The Officer’s analysis is transparent and justified. [ 24 ] The Officer’s other findings, similarly, rest on a finding of insufficiency of evidence. The Applicants have not identified evidence which was misapprehended or ignored. In sum, the arguments presented ask the Court to consider the same evidence that was before the Officer and reach a different—and more favourable—conclusion. [ADDRESS] cannot do so on judicial review ( [NAME] at para 125). [ 25 ] The Applicants claim that the Officer misapprehended evidence on the country conditions in Trinidad and Tobago by focusing on the Applicants past visits rather than documentary evidence of violence in the country. Other than a disagreement with this conclusion, the Applicants have not demonstrated how it was not open for the Officer to make this factual finding. [ 26 ] The Applicants state that the Officer erred in introducing an internal flight alternative [IFA] analysis by considering that the Applicant and his family can move to another part of Nigeria if they do not want to live in the village where the Applicant’s mother was killed (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 694 at paras 21–22; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 209 at paras 48–49). They explain that the Officer, first, incorrectly introduced an IFA analysis, and second, did not conduct the analysis to completion by specifying where in Nigeria would it be reasonable for the Applicants to live. The Applicants submit that the Officer opened the door to the question of where they would go but then failed to engage with this question. [ 27 ] The Respondent submits that the Applicants have mischaracterized the cited passages of the Decision as an IFA analysis. For there to be an IFA finding, the Officer needed to conclude that [NAME] and his family would be at risk in his village in Nigeria. There was no such finding here. Simply stating that the Applicants do not have to go back to a village does not amount to recognizing a risk in that village, nor does that create an IFA analysis. [ 28 ] I agree. Reading the Decision holistically, the Officer's statement that the Applicants need not return to the village where the Applicant's mother's church was attacked was not an IFA finding. The Officer did not conclude that the Applicants would be at risk in Nigeria. As the Respondent correctly noted, focusing on this comment in an isolated manner would amount to an impermissible "treasure-hunt for error" ( [NAME] at para 102). [ 29 ] The Applicants claim that the decision-maker erred in their assessment of adverse country conditions in Nigeria. Specifically, the Officer imported a personalized risk analysis, as is done in refugee cases, into their examination of religious violence in Nigeria. They submit that doing so was improper in an [NAME] context (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 571 at para 4; [NAME] at paras 52–56). [ 30 ] The Applicants’ submissions addressed that people of Christian faith face persecution or are at risk in Nigeria. They discussed anti-Christian violence, focusing on the attack in [NAME]’s village and related to his fear and stress of returning to this traumatic location. The Officer was responding to the submissions before them, finding that they did not agree on the submission of widespread religious persecution in Nigeria. I cannot find that there was a “personalized risk analysis” undertaken in this case. The Decision essentially did not accept the Applicants’ allegation. This conclusion was justified, transparent and intelligible. [ 31 ] The Applicants submit that the decision-maker unreasonably inferred a conclusion on children’s educational opportunities in Trinidad and Tobago by considering that their mother had access to education in the country as well. The Respondent conceded that the Federal Court’s jurisprudence has found such an analysis to be unreasonable (see e.g. [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1180 at para 19) but that in the Applicants’ case, it was not sufficient to vitiate the Decision. [ 32 ] Although I agree that the decision-maker erred with this element of the analysis, I cannot find that this mistake renders the entire Decision unreasonable. Reasons are not to be assessed against a standard of perfection ( [NAME] at para 91). Any flaw must be more than superficial for the reviewing court to overturn an administrative decision – they must be central to the Decision. The court must be satisfied that there are “sufficiently serious shortcomings” to warrant intervention ( [NAME] at para 100). This is not the case here, as there were many other factors that were assessed in rejecting the [NAME] application and that I have found to have been reasonable. [ 33 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer minimized the children’s best interest, failed to engage with evidence of their integration in Canada, and with the evidence of hardship and gender discrimination in Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago. The Officer ignored the psychotherapist report in their reasons and gave no indication that they gave weight to the opinion that [NAME] would be negatively affected by removal from Canada. The Applicants also take issue with the Officer’s silence on the lack of economic resources the children would suffer if their family lost its source of income. The Applicant claims that the Officer failed to analyze the consequences of the removal of the children from Canada and instead relied on the parent’s assurances that they will take care of them (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1540 [ [NAME] ]). [ 34 ] In [NAME] , the Officer considered whether a grandchild would “manage or survive” if his grandparents were to leave Canada. Justice Pentney found this analysis unreasonable, because the Officer considered whether the grandparents’ presence was necessary for the grandchild’s wellbeing, as opposed to considering what was in his best interest. [ 35 ] I cannot agree with the Applicants that [NAME] is analogous to their case. The Officer does emphasize the fact that the children will stay with their parents and will continue to be supported by the latter, but this statement did not amount to applying the incorrect test as was discussed in [NAME] . The Officer considered the children’s education and well-being following removal, in light of the fact that the children would remain with their parents who would provide for them, as the points raised by the Applicants on BIOC related primarily to education and safety. These submissions were adequately addressed. The Applicants’ arguments on this issue, with respect, consist of a request to reweigh the evidence and are not appropriate on judicial review ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 36 ] The Applicant claims that the Officer erred in their analysis of the psychotherapist’s opinion by concluding that the opinion and thus, this piece of evidence, was insufficient. The Respondent correctly highlighted that the psychotherapist report goes to the heart of the Officer’s role, recites hearsay evidence, opines that the BIOC is to remain in Canada, but only provided a general assessment, with no significant medical health conditions or diagnosis identified. [ 37 ] In this case, the Applicants did not identify how the Officer misapprehended or ignored the opinion.

Accordingly, the Officer’s analysis of this report is reasonable. [ 38 ] In sum, I cannot conclude that the Decision as a whole, based on the record before the decision-maker, has shortcomings which are sufficiently central or significant to render it unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100).

V. Conclusion [ 39 ] The Decision is justified in light of the legal and factual constraints that bear upon it. The Decision was responsive to the Applicants’ submissions and is coherent and rational in its analysis of the evidence and arguments provided. As such, the Decision is not unreasonable. [ 40 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties do not propose any question for certification, and I agree that in these circumstances, none arise.

JUDGMENT in IMM-25-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that :

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification.

3. The style of cause is amended to reflect [NAME] and [NAME] as co-Applicants. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-25-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] ET AL. v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 4, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: NGO J. DATED: JULY 8, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant Leah Jamieson For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] (Ontario) For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Ottawa (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT