Docket: IMM-2196-25
Citation: 2026 FC 526
Ottawa, Ontario, April 20, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer
|
BETWEEN: |
|
Emilio Javier MENDOZA LESCANO, Ericka Mishell MOREIRA MACIAS, Emily MENDOZA MOREIRA |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Adult Applicants, Emilio Javier Mendoza Lescano [individually, Principal Applicant or PA], Ericka Mishell Moreira Macias [individually, Associate Applicant or AA], and their minor daughter [Minor Applicant] are Spanish citizens. The Adult Applicants also are Ecuadorian nationals. Another minor child of the family who was born in Canada is not a party to the Applicants’ judicial review application.
[2] The PA and the AA met in school when they were 13 years old. They began dating at 15, and had their first child, the Minor Applicant, at 16 years old, in 2009. They tried hard to make life work in Spain but had difficulties making ends meet because their families had left Spain during the economic crisis. The AA’s sister – along with their father, mother, and other siblings – had moved to Canada, and she invited the Applicants to join her. The Applicants initially refused. Around that time, their problems were growing: the Minor Applicant was diagnosed with a learning disability; the Adult Applicants faced ongoing relationship problems; and their financial situation was unstable.
[3] At some point prior to 2017, the AA visited her family in Canada where, reunited with her family, she was happy. Consequently, in 2017, the Adult Applicants made the decision that the AA and the Minor Applicant would go to Canada and that the PA would join them a few months later. The PA arrived in Canada in December 2017, to join the AA and the Minor Applicant who arrived in Canada a few months earlier in June 2017. They all arrived as foreign nationals.
[4] The Applicants lived with the AA’s sister until they could afford to rent their own apartment. Although they had to move back in with the AA’s sister when the Covid-19 pandemic hit, they managed to move out again once the PA was able to work again. The Minor Applicant went to school, which offered specialized education to account for her learning disability. The PA worked in construction and ultimately started his own construction business. In 2021, the Adult Applicants had their second child, a Canadian citizen, who they believe also has a learning disability; tests were being undertaken at the time of the H&C application, and he had begun speech therapy.
[5] In May 2023, they filed an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds pursuant to paragraph 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The H&C application was based on the grounds of establishment, the best interest of the children, and hardship upon return to Spain, because of the economic situation there, or upon return to Ecuador, where crime and gender-based violence remain prominent.
[6] An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada immigration officer [Officer] refused the Applicants’ H&C application in January 2025 [Decision]. The Applicants seek judicial review of the Decision, arguing that the officer failed to adopt an empathetic approach, miscomprehended or ignored essential aspects of the Applicants’ request and, therefore, failed to consider the matter globally. The Respondent disagrees and maintains that there is nothing in the Decision that amounts to a reviewable error; the Applicants essentially are asking the Court to reweigh the evidence considered by the Officer and come to a different conclusion.
[7] For the reasons below, I find the Applicants have shown that the Decision is unreasonable. It is not evident on the face of the Decision that the Officer considered the Applicants’ circumstances compassionately and empathetically. I thus will grant the Applicants’ judicial review application.
II. Analysis
A. The Decision is Unreasonable
[8] There is no dispute that the presumptive standard of reasonableness applies to the Court’s review of this matter. A reasonable decision is one that bears the hallmarks of justification, intelligibility and transparency, with a logical chain of analysis and internally coherent reasons that permit the Court “to connect the dots on the page where the lines, and the direction they are headed, may be readily drawn”
: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 97, citing Komolafe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 431 at para 11.
[9] Further, the administrative decision-maker must have taken a contextual, global approach to H&C review and considered whether the evidenced facts would excite in a reasonable person, in a civilized community, a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another: Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [Kanthasamy] at para 13, citing Chirwa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1970), 4 IAC 338 [Chirwa]. As this Court previously has observed, compassion requires an empathetic approach: Damte v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1212 at para 34. In other words, when determining an H&C application, an officer must consider not just hardship but also the Chirwa test, namely, humanitarian and compassionate factors in the broader sense: Marshall v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 72 at para 33.
[10] Bearing the above principles in mind, I find that there is little in the Decision to show that the Officer considered the Applicants’ situation compassionately. As an example, the Officer failed, in my view, to consider the fact that if the Applicants were to return to Spain, they no longer had a home, family members, or support systems there, which was central to their H&C application: Gregory v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 277 [Gregory] at para 37. Rather than considering the Applicants’ establishment factors holistically, the Officer looked at various factors separately, such as their self-sufficiency, acquired job skills, volunteerism, attendance at church, and their extended family residing in Canada, without considering the effect removal would have on these Applicants, including the hardship they may face without any supports (which prompted their move here): Gregory, above at para 36; Kanthasamy, above at para 45.
[11] In addition, regarding the factor of the Applicants’ self-sufficiency, I find the Officer’s assessment of this factor is indicative of turning a positive factor into a negative one. Instead of attributing positive or even neutral weight to their employment and financial stability in Canada, the Officer instead unreasonably discounted their situation by determining it was “expected for those residing in Canada”
and assigned negative weight to this factor because of their lack of authorization to work as foreign nationals in Canada.
[12] Although the Officer is entitled to take the Applicants’ negative immigration history into account, they cannot “wield it to diminish otherwise meritorious establishment factors”
: Nyamondo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 149 at para 20 [Nyamondo]. Further, this Court has held that “it is unreasonable to require, without more explanation, an ‘extraordinary’ level of establishment”
; the question is whether an applicant deserves H&C relief, not whether they have made “a special contribution to society”
: Sivalingam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1185 at para 13.
[13] Regarding the Applicants’ volunteerism and weekly church attendance, I find that the Officer unreasonably applied a hardship lens to this aspect of the Applicants’ establishment by considering whether they would be able to continue these activities in Spain (i.e. if they were unable to obtain permanent resident status in Canada): Nyamondo, above at para 21.
[14] I find the Officer’s assessment of the Applicants’ establishment in Canada determinative and, therefore, I decline to address the Officer’s analysis of the best interests of the children.
III. Conclusion
[15] For the above reasons, the judicial review application is granted. The Decision is set aside, with the matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
[16] None of the parties proposed a serious question of general importance for certification. I find that none arises in the circumstances.
Email this Content