H&C De Facto Family Member Refusal Set Aside

The Federal Court has set aside an H&C de facto family member refusal after finding that an immigration officer did not meaningfully address an Afghan family’s forced separation and long-running efforts to reunite in Canada. The application for judicial review was granted on November 6, 2026, and the permanent residence application must be decided again by a different officer.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Youssufi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1366, Court file IMM-199-25.
• Decision date & judge: November 6, 2026, before Mr. Justice Joyal.
• Issue: The Court reviewed the refusal of a permanent residence application seeking an H&C exemption as a de facto family member.
• Outcome: Judicial review was granted; the December 24, 2024 refusal was set aside and remitted to a different officer for redetermination.

Permanent residence application and family separation

The applicant, an Afghan citizen, fled Afghanistan with his mother and siblings in 2006. During their journey through Turkey in 2007, human smugglers separated the family into two boats; the applicant and his mother reached Denmark, while his siblings were later resettled in Canada.

After re-establishing contact in 2009, the family spent more than 15 years trying to reunite. In November 2023, the applicant and his mother applied for permanent residence with sponsorship from the applicant’s brother.

They acknowledged that they did not meet the family class definition under paragraph 117(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. They instead requested relief under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds as de facto family members.

The officer refused the applicant’s application on December 24, 2024. The officer found that the H&C considerations did not justify an exemption, treating the applicant’s establishment in Denmark and the family’s ability to communicate and visit as negative considerations.

Why the Court found the refusal unreasonable

Justice Joyal held that the officer failed to meaningfully grapple with a central part of the applicant’s case: the family had been separated against its will while fleeing Afghanistan, and its members had repeatedly tried to reunite in Canada.

The Court found that this omission affected how the officer assessed the applicant’s residence in Denmark. The applicant had not relied on establishment there; he had pointed to the precariousness of his status and the absence of a path to permanent residence. The officer did not engage with whether Denmark offered a durable alternative to reunification with his siblings in Canada.

The Court also found that the officer unreasonably discounted evidence of emotional interdependence. The officer viewed the family’s digital contact and meetings in Europe as showing low barriers to maintaining their relationship, without considering that those efforts could demonstrate the strength of the family bond and their wish to live together.

The judgment noted that the officer did not address other reunification attempts in the record, including an unsuccessful attempt by the applicant and his mother to enter Canada from the United States in 2013 and the refusal of the mother’s Super Visa application in 2022.

The applicable standard of review was reasonableness. The Court stressed that it was not reweighing the evidence, but reviewing whether the officer had engaged with central evidence and arguments. It concluded that the identified errors were sufficiently central to make the decision unreasonable.

Application returned for a new decision

The Court did not grant the applicant permanent resident status. It set aside the refusal and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination.

The decision concerns the particular H&C record before the Court. It underscores that, when assessing an asserted de facto family relationship, an officer must meaningfully consider relevant evidence of dependency, the origins and duration of separation, and efforts by family members to reunite.

Source: Federal Court Decisions