Docket: IMM-24205-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1836
Ottawa, Ontario, November 18, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lafrenière
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MAJOR SINGH
BALVIR KAUR
SAHILDEEP SINGH |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicants, Major Singh, his wife Balvir Kaur, and their son Sahildeep Singh seek judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] of the decision dated November 29, 2024 [the Decision] by a senior Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship [IRCC] officer [the Officer] rejecting the Applicants’ application for permanent residence based on the humanitarian and compassionate grounds [H&C] category under subsection 25(1) of the IRPA.
[2] For the following reasons, I find that the Applicants have not demonstrated that the Decision contains a reviewable error or is otherwise unreasonable. The application is accordingly dismissed.
II. Background
[3] The Applicants are citizen of India. They arrived in Canada in December 2017.
[4] In June 2018, the Applicants claimed refugee status claiming to fear a drug trafficker and the Punjab police which allegedly fabricated accusations of drug trafficking against Mr. Singh.
[5] The Applicants’ refugee claim was found to be not credible by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] on June 28, 2021. Their appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] was dismissed on December 3, 2021. The Applicants then sought leave to judicially review the RAD’s decision. Leave was dismissed by this Court on August 3, 2022.
[6] The Applicants submitted an H&C application to IRCC on January 4, 2023. Their application was based on their six-year establishment in Canada, the best interests of 12-year-old Sahildeep, hardship due to “danger of violence”
given that the Applicants are part of the Sikh minority, adverse country conditions in India, and violence against women.
[7] On November 29, 2024, the Officer rejected the H&C application. The Officer concluded that all the factors presented by the Applicants in their application were insufficient to grant them an exemption, based on H&C considerations, to be allowed to present their application for permanent residence from within Canada.
III. Issue to be Determined and Standard of Review
[8] The Applicants submit that the issue to be determined is whether the Decision is arbitrary as a whole. I disagree. The issue here is rather whether the Decision refusing to grant the Applicants an exemption, on H&C considerations, from the requirement of presenting their application for permanent residence from outside Canada and from the obligation to meet the requirements of a permanent resident category is unreasonable.
[9] Reasonableness is the presumptive standard of review of the merits of an administrative decision. None of the circumstances warranting a departure from this presumption arise in this case (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 25 [Vavilov]).
[10] A reasonable decision is one 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). The burden is on the Applicant to satisfy the Court “that any shortcomings or flaws relied on (…) are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable.”
(Vavilov at para 100.)
IV. Analysis
[11] The Applicants submit that the Officer erred in their assessment of the Applicants’ specific circumstances, both regarding their strong establishment in Canada, as well as the level of personalized hardships they would face based on India’s country conditions should they return to their country of origin.
[12] More specifically, the Applicants argue that the Officer did not properly assess the objective evidence that indicates that based on their visible profile as members of the Sikh community and India’s history between Sikhs and Hindus, in the context of the current pro-Hindu stance of the Modi government, the Applicants would face undeserved hardships based on their religious profile. They criticize the Officer’s failure to properly consider the lack of proper sanitation and access to clean water in India. They also argue that the Officer erred by focusing its analysis regarding gender solely on the ability of Ms. Kaur to find employment, rather than the general gender-based hardships she would face as a woman in India. Finally, they claim that the Officer’s assessment failed to consider Sahildeep’s specific and personal circumstances.
[13] There is no merit to these arguments. A careful review of the Decision reveals that the Officer considered the evidence submitted by the Applicants and granted the weight they deemed appropriate, which is in their expertise and purview.
[14] The Officer did not give any weight to the alleged hardships associated with general country conditions in India given the Applicants’ lack of supporting evidence. I see no error in the conclusion. In their H&C application, the Appellants described general concerns about violence and discrimination against Sikhs. However, the Officer correctly noted that while Sikhs are a minority in India and they face hardships, there is no evidence of widespread or systematic mistreatment of Sikhs. It was open to the Officer to conclude, in the absence of any evidence of personalized risk or hardship to the Applicants, that the Applicants do not face any hardship supporting special relief.
[15] The Applicants submitted in their H&C application that Ms. Kaur faces hardship because she is a woman, and India is a dangerous country for women. The Officer addressed these allegations as follows:
[…] while I recognize that the applicants worry about the female applicant’s safety because she is a woman and there have been reports of violence against women throughout the country, I note that outside of general comments made by counsel on the matter it is not stated if the female applicant ever feared for her safety while she lived in India for the majority of her life. Further, there is little to support that if the female applicant could not access protection from authorities if she did require it.
[16] I find no fault in the Officer’s reasoning.
[17] The Applicants submit that the Officer erred by focusing their analysis regarding gender solely on the ability of Ms. Kaur to find employment, rather than the general gender-based hardships she would face as a woman in India. The Officer did no such thing. The Applicants specifically asked the Officer to look at articles that describe how women are mistreated in India and how “it directly negatively impacts applicant’s wife ability to have the freedom to work in the workforce, as she does in Canada.”
The Officer simply noted that the Applicants did not provide evidence that Ms. Kaur would not be able to continue working if she returns to India.
[18] The Officer acknowledged that there were problems with sanitation and unhealthy water in India; however, they found that this was not an exceptional circumstance to justify a positive exemption. Once again, I see no error in this finding. Other than describing general concerns about poor sanitation in India, the Applicants did not provide any evidence to support a finding that they, as persons of means, faced any specific risk related to this issue.
[19] As for the best interests of the child [BIOC], the Officer found that the evidence did not demonstrate that Sahildeep’s best interest would be adversely impacted such that an exemption is justified when considered in this global assessment.
[20] The Officer took note of the parents’ fear that Sahildeep will be kidnapped, fall into drugs, drop out of school or be influenced by political parties if returned to India, as well as face discrimination because he is Sikh. The Officer recognized their concerns but found that “these worries are shared by parents around the world, it is not exclusive to persons living in India.”
This is a reasonable finding given that the parents’ fears are mere speculation.
[21] The Officer took into account an article provided by the Applicants that speaks of improvements that are required in the Indian education system. The Officer noted however that it does not substantiate that Sahildeep would not be able to obtain an adequate education in India. I see no error in this finding. The Officer acknowledged that Sahildeep will have to adjust to returning to India and gave this aspect weight in the Decision. However, the Applicants did not provide any evidence to support a conclusion that Sahildeep would be would be adversely impacted if returned to India.
[22] The Officer further found that there is little evidence that Sahildeep, who was more likely than not returning to India with his parents, would face discrimination at school or because he is Sikh or that he would not be in a safe environment. It was open to the Officer to so find on the record before them.
[23] The Officer attributed a positive and moderate amount of weight to the Applicants’ establishment in Canada; however, they found that there was insufficient evidence adduced to justify that an exemption should be granted.
[24] The Applicants repeatedly argue in their memorandum of argument that more weight should have been given to the evidence they presented to the Officer. However, it is abundantly clear the role of this Court is not to reweigh and reassess the evidence unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”
(Vavilov at para 125.) No such circumstances have been demonstrated by the Applicants.
[25] Considerable deference is owed to the Officer’s weighing of H&C factors (Wang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FC 705 at para 29). As long as the totality of the evidence was properly examined, the question of weight remains entirely within the expertise of the immigration officer (Lopez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1172 at para 31).
[26] On the evidence before me, I cannot find that the Officer’s analysis or conclusions are unreasonable.
V. Conclusion
[27] The Applicants have failed to provide any persuasive arguments to suggest that the Officer materially erred in their decision. The Officer’s reasons are clear, cogent and comprehensive.
[28] When the Decision is read as a whole, it is clear the Officer had a grasp of the issues and the evidence before them. Notably, the Officer was alert, alive and sensitive to Sahildeep’s best interest. Therefore, intervention by this Court is not warranted.
Email this Content