The Federal Court has set aside an IRCC officer’s refusal of an in-Canada humanitarian and compassionate permanent residence application, finding the assessment of family-centred establishment, hardship and the children’s interests unreasonable. In Nijjar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1299, the matter was returned to a different officer for redetermination.
Applicant relied on family life and caregiving in Canada
The applicant, a widowed Indian citizen, applied for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. Her application relied on her establishment in Canada, hardship if she returned to India, and the best interests of her two grandchildren in Canada.
She lived with her permanent resident daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren in Brampton. Her evidence was that she helped the household through childcare, homemaking and education, while her family provided emotional and financial support. Her siblings also lived in Canada.
The applicant submitted that she had no immediate family remaining in India after the deaths of her husband and son, had no formal education or work history outside the home, and would lack meaningful family support if required to return.
Officer gave limited weight to establishment and hardship
The IRCC officer acknowledged the applicant’s family relationships and her family’s support, but gave her establishment only modest weight, finding little evidence of establishment outside the family. The officer also found insufficient objective evidence that she would face significant hardship in India, could not live independently, or could not access caregiving or medical care there.
On the best interests of the children directly affected, the officer accepted that the grandchildren were attached to the applicant and that she had a caregiving role. However, the officer found that the children’s parents were their primary caregivers and that alternative childcare and telecommunications could address the consequences of separation.
Following a global assessment, the officer concluded that the H&C considerations did not justify an exemption under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Court found the H&C assessment unreasonable
Justice D’Agostino reviewed the refusal on the reasonableness standard. The Court held that the officer did not adequately explain why the applicant’s co-residence, dependence and daily caregiving within her daughter’s family warranted only modest weight. The reasons also did not address evidence that she attended the local Gurudwara with her grandchildren.
On hardship, the Court found that the officer relied on the applicant’s past stays in India without accounting for circumstances surrounding her travel and temporary resident visa history. The Court also found that the officer did not meaningfully address whether a full-time caregiver or adequate medical care would realistically be available in the applicant’s circumstances.
The Court said that the applicant’s prior residence in India, citizenship and Punjabi language ability did not establish that she retained a support network there. It also found the officer’s conclusion that departure would have no negative impact did not logically follow from the hardships the officer had acknowledged.
Regarding the grandchildren, the Court accepted that the parents’ continuing role as primary caregivers was relevant. However, it held that the analysis did not adequately address the effects of losing the applicant’s daily care and physical presence. The Court said the absence of evidence that alternative arrangements were impossible did not, without further explanation, show that those arrangements would adequately address the children’s interests.
Refusal set aside and returned to another officer
The Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal and remitted the H&C permanent residence application to a different IRCC officer for redetermination.
The decision does not grant permanent residence or direct a particular outcome on reconsideration. It requires a new determination in accordance with the Court’s reasons.
The case is Nijjar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1299, Court file IMM-7608-25, decided by Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino. No question of general importance was certified.
Source: Federal Court Decisions