In a significant decision released on April 2, 2025, the Federal Court, under Justice Diner, overturned the refusal of Josephine Rubio’s application for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The case, Rubio v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2025 FC 609), serves as a crucial reminder of the need for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officers to adopt a contextual and holistic approach when assessing H&C applications, particularly those involving long-term establishment and compelling personal circumstances.
Ms. Rubio, a citizen of the Philippines residing in London, Ontario, had spent over 15 years in Canada after arriving in 2008 under the Live-in Caregiver Program. During this time, she worked diligently as a caregiver and personal support worker, even throughout the challenging COVID-19 pandemic. Her journey to an H&C application was unfortunately paved by misrepresentation on a previous Permanent Resident application under the LIC Class, stemming from her daughter’s falsification of medical examination receipts – an act unbeknownst to Ms. Rubio.
Faced with this barrier, Ms. Rubio turned to the H&C pathway, arguing her deep establishment in Canada, the best interests of her grandson in the Philippines who relies on her support, and the significant hardships she would face upon returning to the Philippines, including potential mental health deterioration, the risk of domestic violence from her ex-husband (from whom she separated in 1992 and divorced in 2010), and limited employment and housing prospects.
Despite these compelling arguments and updated documentation submitted in her second H&C application in 2023, the IRCC officer refused her application. The officer deemed her establishment insufficient, downplayed her community involvement and relationships in Canada (including with a Canadian companion), found inadequate evidence of hardship upon return, and concluded that the best interests of her grandson lay in her return to the Philippines.
Justice Diner, however, found the officer’s decision to be unreasonable on several key grounds. The Court emphasized the officer’s failure to consider the underlying reasons for Ms. Rubio’s H&C application – the unfortunate circumstance of the daughter’s misrepresentation that closed off other avenues for permanent residency after years of building a life in Canada. The officer also overlooked the initial reasons for Ms. Rubio’s arrival in Canada: to financially support her family and escape an abusive relationship.
Drawing on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Kanthasamy v Canada, Justice Diner stressed the necessity of a contextual approach to H&C assessments, one that considers the broader picture and the cumulative impact of the applicant’s circumstances. The officer, in this case, adopted a “segmented approach,” analyzing each factor in isolation rather than considering their interconnectedness.
A critical error identified by the Court was the officer’s unreasonable treatment of Ms. Rubio’s establishment in Canada. Instead of recognizing her adaptability and resilience as positive factors weighing in favour of granting the H&C exemption, the officer used these qualities to suggest she could easily re-establish herself in the Philippines. Justice Diner cited previous Federal Court cases (Singh v Canada 2019 FC 1142 and 2019 FC 1633) to highlight the unreasonableness of turning an applicant’s positive establishment into a negative factor against them. The Court underscored that the focus should be on the degree of establishment and how it supports granting the exemption, not simply whether the applicant could survive elsewhere.
Similarly, the officer’s assessment of Ms. Rubio’s community involvement and relationshipswas deemed flawed. The officer questioned whether the community could continue without her, rather than focusing on Ms. Rubio’s contributions and the significance of these connections to her life in Canada. The Court reiterated that the analysis should center on the applicant and their established ties, not on whether the Canadian community would be irrevocably harmed by their departure.
Furthermore, Justice Diner found the officer’s hardship analysis unreasonable, particularly the failure to fully consider the updated evidence regarding employment prospects and the cost of living in the Philippines. The Court noted that the officer appeared to rely heavily on evidence from Ms. Rubio’s earlier (2020) application and failed to adequately engage with the new information submitted in 2023, including the potential inability to financially support herself and her family even if employed in the Philippines.
Ultimately, Justice Diner granted the judicial review, finding the officer’s decision unreasonable. The matter has been remitted for redetermination by a different officer, who must assess the application in accordance with the Court’s reasons.
This case serves as an important reminder for both applicants and immigration practitioners. It underscores the critical need for H&C applications to present a comprehensive and well-documented picture of the applicant’s unique circumstances, including their establishment, potential hardships, and any other compelling humanitarian and compassionate factors. For IRCC officers, this decision reinforces the obligation to conduct a thorough, contextual, and reasonable assessment that truly considers the individual circumstances of each applicant, especially those who have built significant lives and connections in Canada.
