The Federal Court dismissed Ricardo Vladimir Forcades Cuesta’s application for judicial review of the refusal of his H&C permanent residence application. Justice Ngo found the immigration officer’s assessment of his establishment, immigration history and claimed hardship on return to Cuba was reasonable.
H&C refusal challenged on reasonableness review
In Forcades v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1117, released September 1, 2026, the Federal Court reviewed an officer’s January 21, 2022 refusal of an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The applicant was self-represented. Justice Ngo stated that the Court’s role on judicial review was not to reconsider the merits of the H&C application or decide whether the officer should have granted it. The issue was whether the officer’s decision was unreasonable, assessed on the reasonableness standard.
Applicant relied on establishment and return concerns
The applicant entered Canada on May 12, 2013, with a work permit for a three-week visiting-scholar placement at Capilano University in Vancouver. That permit expired on June 30, 2013, and he later received work permits.
His H&C evidence included work permits, employer letters, pay stubs, an online-training certificate, a Canada Revenue Agency notice of assessment, letters from friends and an affidavit. He acknowledged overstaying his visa and expressed remorse. He also said he supported family members in Cuba financially and was concerned about political retribution and other consequences on return.
The applicant argued that the officer erred by weighing his lack of compliance with immigration laws despite his later work permits, tax payments and lengthy presence in Canada. He also submitted country-condition evidence concerning Cuba’s treatment of deserters.
Court found the officer addressed the relevant factors
Justice Ngo found that the officer correctly applied section 202 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Under that provision, a foreign national issued a work permit under specified provisions does not become a temporary resident merely because of that permit. The Court held it was therefore open to the officer to find that the applicant did not have status and to consider his failure to regularize that status when assessing establishment.
The Court also found that the officer reasonably concluded the applicant’s period in Canada and establishment, on their own, did not justify H&C relief. The decision gave positive weight to his friendships in Canada, the emotional difficulty of separation from friends, and his claimed financial support for family in Cuba.
On hardship related to return to Cuba, the officer considered the applicant’s previous refugee claim, which the Refugee Protection Division denied in August 2014, and his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, which was refused in February 2016. The officer reviewed evidence that some Cuban nationals who leave without authorization may face difficulty returning or serious consequences, but found the applicant had not shown that he personally would face that treatment. Justice Ngo held that this factual finding was grounded in the record.
Judicial review dismissed
The Court concluded that the officer had grappled with the applicant’s submissions, assigned weight to the relevant factors and provided responsive reasons for refusing relief. The officer placed significant negative weight on the applicant’s disregard for Canadian immigration laws, while finding the positive factors insufficient to outweigh the other considerations.
Justice Ngo held that the decision was coherent, rational and responsive to the evidence and arguments. The applicant’s submissions largely disagreed with the officer’s weighing of the evidence, and accepting them would have required the Court to reassess the facts and substitute its own view on the H&C factors.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court did not certify a question.
What the decision means
This decision turns on the record and the officer’s reasons in this H&C application. It illustrates that, on judicial review, the Federal Court examines whether the decision-making process and outcome are reasonable rather than conducting a new assessment of the application.
The Court’s ruling does not direct a new H&C assessment in this matter or alter the general H&C framework. It confirms that, where an officer substantively considers the evidence and explains the weighing of positive and negative factors, disagreement with that weighing alone will not establish unreasonableness.
Source: Federal Court Decisions