REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Ms. Vanessa Fabiola Andalon Zaragoza (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”) refusing her application for permanent residence 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 Mexico who has resided in Canada since May 25, 2007. On June 13, 2022, she submitted her application for permanent residence on H and C grounds, citing her establishment in Canada, potential hardship of relocating to Mexico and the best interests of children in Canada with whom she has a relationship arising from time that she has spent babysitting them.

[3] The Applicant now argues that the Officer focused unduly with her non-compliance with Canadian immigration laws, failed to take reasonably into account the impact upon her mental health of returning to Mexico and unreasonably addressed the best interests of children with whom she has a relationship.

[4] 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 of the Officer is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

[5] 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 that decision"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.

[6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) contends that the Officer reasonably considered the evidence submitted and made reasonably concluded that the Applicant would not suffer such hardship if forced to apply for permanent residence from outside the country that “would excite in a reasonable [person] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another”; see Mursalim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 596 at paragraph 25.

[7] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that essentially the Applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its view of the Applicant’s application.

[8] There is no basis for judicial intervention and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-10973-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

"E. Heneghan"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: