Date: 20241128 |
Docket: IMM-911-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1911
|
Vancouver, British Columbia, November 28, 2024
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
VIOLETTA TRYNCHUK
|
Applicant |
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mrs. Violetta Trynchuk (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”
), refusing her application for permanent residence from within Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H and C”
) grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”
).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Ukraine. She entered Canada in January 2022, as a visitor. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, she applied for permanent residence in Canada as a Convention refugee. However, she withdrew that application in August, 2022. In December 2022, she applied for permanent residence on H and C grounds.
[3] The Applicant based her H and C application upon harm to her mental health if forced to return to Ukraine, and she provided a psychological report in support of that assertion.
[4] Ukraine is subject to an Administrative Deferral of Removals (“ADR”
) at this time and the Applicant is not subject to any removal proceedings.
[5] The Officer refused the Applicant’s application on the grounds that an ADR is in place.
[6] The Applicant argues that the Officer failed to consider the evidence, in particular the contents of the psychological report.
[7] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”
) submits that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and that there is no basis for judicial intervention.
[8] Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.
[9] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
; see Vavilov, supra, at paragraph 99.
[10] I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments. The Officer considered the psychological report, but did not find it determinative of the Applicant’s application.
[11] The Officer noted that the ADR now in place means that the Applicant is not in danger of removal during the current conflict.
[12] In my opinion, the decision meets the applicable standard of review and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
[13] In closing, I note that dismissal of this application for permanent residence on H and C grounds does not bar the Applicant from making another application, presenting up-to-date evidence about her establishment in Canada and about hardship to her, if required to seek permanent residence in the usual way, that is from outside Canada.
Email this Content