Date: 20260324

Docket: IMM-17157-24

Citation: 2026 FC 397

Ottawa, Ontario, March 24, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] Ireoluwa Omowunmi Roberts [Applicant] is a 15 year-old from Nigeria who entered Canada on a student visa for a duration of 6 months and seeks judicial review of an Immigration Officer’s [Officer] refusal to grant her permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. On judicial review, the Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable because it does not consider the best interest of the child as well as the hardship that it will cause to her mental health if she returns to Nigeria.

[2] For the following reasons, the applicant for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background Facts

[3] The Applicant is a 15-year-old citizen of Nigeria. On January 27, 2023, at the age of 12, the Applicant was issued a six-month study permit sponsored by her aunt residing in Alberta, which was set to expire on July 5, 2023.

[4] On April 9, 2023, after attending school for two months in Alberta, the Applicant’s aunt informed her that she would be travelling to Nigeria to visit her parents. Upon her arrival, the Applicant and her parents were informed that her aunt no longer desired to act as her Canadian custodian and that the Applicant would not be able to return to Canada. After learning this information, the Applicant experienced a psychotic episode for which she received immediate psychiatric care from a consultant psychiatrist. Given the impact of the decision on the Applicant’s health, one of the Applicant’s aunts residing in Vancouver agreed to assume responsibility for her care and bring her back to Canada.

[5] On April 15, 2023, the Applicant returned to Vancouver.

[6] On June 20, 2023, a few weeks before the expiration of her study permit, the Applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada on H&C grounds, on the premise that returning to Nigeria would have a negative impact on her mental health and that her parents would not be able to continue taking of her due to their own mental health issues.

[7] On July 5, 2023, the Applicant’s study permit expired and was not renewed.

[8] On August 15, 2024, the Officer rejected the Applicant’s H&C application on the basis that she did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the H&C grounds of her application, notably that she would suffer from mental health issues upon her return to Nigeria.

[9] Regarding the Applicant’s mental health issues, the Officer concluded that her psychotic episode was an isolated event precipitated by an abrupt change in her expectation to study in Canada, which was triggered by her aunt’s decision to return her to Nigeria, and that she received psychiatric assistance from a consultant psychiatrist in Nigeria. The Applicant provided no further evidence of any subsequent psychotic episode or other mental health issue following this isolated incident. The Officer also found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence proving that her parents are unable to care for her because they suffer from bipolar disorder.

III. Issues and Standard of Review

[10] The sole issue in this case is whether the decision is reasonable.

[11] The parties both agree that the standard of review is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [Mason]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99; Mason at para 59). The decision must be read holistically and contextually, in light of the evidence, the submissions and the context in which it was rendered (Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 at para 47 [Pepa]; Vavilov at paras 94, 97). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 125-126; Mason at para 73). However, the reviewing Court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 125). In determining reasonableness, the reviewing Court must not create its “own yardstick” and use it to measure what the decision maker did (Pepa at para 48; Vavilov at para 83, and Canada Post Corp. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 at para 40). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping” exercise, it is a robust form of review (Vavilov at para 13; Mason at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached” (Vavilov at paras 100, 106; Pepa at para 49).

IV. Analysis

[12] The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable because the Officer failed to grapple with the arguments and the evidence made, did not conduct an assessment that is “alert, alive and sensitive to the best interest of the child”, and failed to take into account that “children will rarely, if ever, be deserving of any hardship”. The Applicant submits that the H&C application sought to provide her with a status that would allow her to pursue her studies in Canada, thereby preventing her from returning to Nigeria which could potentially provoke further mental distress. The Applicant also states that permanent residency on H&C grounds is necessary because the aunt who is now responsible for her care is a single mother who has lost her employment and is unable to defray the tuition costs of an international student. Implicitly, it is suggested that as a permanent resident, the aunt would be able to provide care for the Applicant as there is little to no tuition cost to attend school.

[13] The Applicant also submits that by concluding that she “will return to Nigeria with minimum difficulty”, the Officer failed to engage with the issues raised in her application, notably the impact of her previous return on her mental health. She states that the Officer did not consider the severity of her mental health issues and their direct connection to her return to Nigeria. The Applicant submits that following her return to Canada and the support of her aunt in Vancouver, her mental health improved and she was able to integrate her new community by participating in various extracurricular activities.

[14] Furthermore, the Officer’s finding that her family in Nigeria can adequately care for her is inconsistent with the evidence. She submits that the evidence clearly demonstrates that her parents’ financial inability to take care of her was a key factor in submitting this application.

[15] Finally, the Applicant submits that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable because they relied on irrelevant considerations: a) of the lack of evidence from the initial aunt that sponsored her; b) the lack of any evidence of her current attendance at school; c) the existence of access to mental health resources in Nigeria; and d) that the Applicant could return to Canada on a student visa in the future. The Applicant’s submits that these findings are unreasonable because : a) the lack of evidence from the aunt who is responsible for her mental health issues is irrelevant; b) she is not entitled to go to school currently as her student visa has expired and therefore cannot provide such evidence; c) at no time the Applicant relied on the lack of access to mental health support in Nigeria as a ground for her H&C application; and d) she cannot return to Canada on a student visa because her family does not have adequate financial resources. Therefore, the Officer’s conclusions are unreasonable.

[16] In Baker c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (CSC), [1999] 2 RCS 817 [Baker] and Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [Kanthasamy], the Supreme Court of Canada held that where an application for H&C consideration engages the best interest of the child [BIOC], the Officer is required to conduct a BIOC analysis that should be centred on the child’s best interest, evaluating how the decision would affect those interests and weighing that impact against other relevant considerations in the application. The BIOC analysis must “be applied in a manner responsive to each child’s particular age, capacity, needs and maturity” and the Officer must be “alert, alive and sensitive” to the child’s best interests (Roman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1183 at para 27 [Roman], citing Kanthasamy at paras 35, 39, 143; Baker at para 75; see also Legault v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 125 at para 12 [Legault]). The analysis should not focus on assessing the hardship a minor applicant may face upon return, their resilience, their skills to integrate and ability to adapt, or on evidence that medical treatment is available in their country of origin (Acosta Fernandez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 586 at paras 15, 21 [Acosta Fernandez]; Alabi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 827 at paras 9, 13,16, 18, 22, 27 [Alabi]).

[17] However, while the BIOC must be accorded significant weight, this factor is not determinative (Roman at para 37; Legault at para 12; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 404 at para 10, citing Kanthasamy at paras 35, 38–41). The H&C analysis must remain grounded in the ““unique and personal consequences” that removal from Canada would have for a child affected by the decision” (Acosta Fernandez at para 19, citing Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 351 at para 22, citing Semana v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1082, at paras 24–27).

[18] Upon consideration of the Officer’s decision, I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s submissions. She failed to discharge her burden to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable.

[19] The Applicant’s submissions are centred on the alleged mental distress that she could experience in Nigeria upon return. However, based on the evidence provided, notably a 1-page report by a consultant psychiatrist, the Applicant experienced one psychotic episode for which she did not pursue any further treatment. According to the report, the Applicant’s psychotic episode was triggered by her aunt’s refusal to continue acting as her Canadian custodian, resulting in the Applicant experiencing a mental breakdown. However, the Applicant did not experience any other psychotic episode before or after the one that occurred in April 2023. Additionally, the Applicant has not provided any evidence indicating that she has existing mental health issues or that any psychological issue may arise if she returns.

[20] The report also states that her psychotic episode was likely caused by the “sudden change of expectations which could have triggered a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness”. The Applicant argues that in her statement in support of her H&C application, she stated that she always expected to remain in Canada and that if she returns to Nigeria, there will be another “change of expectations” that will trigger a new psychotic episode. Indeed, in her statement, the Applicant says “I began to dream of Canada and what it has to offer me in my future plans of becoming a doctor” and “[t]he standards of education differ significantly in Nigeria that in Canada, and in Canada there is opportunity for me to live out my dream of becoming a doctor” (Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at p 40, paras 15-16).

[21] Certainly, it was open to the Officer to infer that, upon arriving in Canada, the Applicant’s expectation was to remain there permanently and that any subsequent return would, like for her other psychotic episode, “trigger” mental health issues. However, the Officer did not make such finding and instead ruled that there is not sufficient evidence to support any future psychotic episode. That conclusion is not unreasonable based on the evidence in the record.

[22] Furthermore, as held by the Officer, there is no reliable evidence confirming the Applicant’s allegations that both of her parents suffer from mental health issues such as bipolar disorder, that they are incapable of taking care of her, and that she will not be able to attend school in Nigeria. The Applicant solely provided a statement, a letter from her aunt and a report from a psychiatrist in Nigeria. No psychiatric report was filed detailing the parents’ mental health issues. The evidence does not establish any of the allegations made by the Applicant and, regarding her parents’ own issues with mental health, this evidence constitutes hearsay. The Officer’s conclusions that there is not sufficient evidence to support the Applicant’s allegations is not unreasonable on that basis.

[23] With respect to the argument that the Officer relied on irrelevant considerations such as: a) the lack of evidence from the initial aunt that sponsored her; b) the lack of any evidence of her current attendance at school; c) the existence of access to mental health resources in Nigeria; and d) that the Applicant could return to Canada on a student visa in the future, reasonableness review is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error” and the Court cannot re-weigh the evidence (Vavilov at paras 100, 102, 125). The Officer noted the elements above because they were part of the evidence and arguments provided by the Applicant. Notably, on the issue of her “current attendance” at school, the H&C application was made before her student visa expired and in her statement, the Applicant said “[w]hile back in Canada I have integrated well and have made friends at school and in Church […] I enjoy school” (CTR at p 47 at paras 38-39). On the issue of the adequacy of mental health resources in Nigeria, the CTR included an article on the lack of access to mental health resources in Nigeria (CTR at p 91). In any event, even if the consideration of the elements above did constitute errors, which I disagree, these alleged shortcomings or flaws are not, in my view, “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” (Vavilov at para 100) or cause the Court to lose confidence in the outcome (Vavilov at para 106).

[24] Finally, I am mindful of decisions such as Acosta Fernandez and Alabi where this Court has recognized that an officer’s failure to account for the negative consequences of resettlement or to consider the child’s mental health issues may constitute grounds for finding an officer’s decision to be unreasonable. However, these cases are distinguishable. In those cases, there was ample evidence and the officer accepted that the applicants’ mental health would “deteriorate” or “worsen” (Acosta Fernandez at paras 8, 22-24, 30; Alabi at paras 24, 28-29). In this case, the Officer made no such finding because of a crucial a lack of evidence. Moreover, unlike Acosta Fernandez and Alabi, the Officer in this case did not err by relying on the existence of mental health services in the country of origin, or on the Applicant’s resilience, skills to integrate and adaptability, to dismiss the Applicant’s claim on H&C grounds.

V. Conclusion

[25] The application for judicial review is dismissed.

[26] There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-17157-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification.

"Guy Régimbald"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: