Tanseer v. M.C.I. 2025 FC 84
The Applicant and her minor children applied for permanent residence in Canada under the Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. Prior to their H&C application, they had been in Canada for several years.
She hired Eastman Law Office to file an H&C application on their behalf. The H&C application was based on, amongst other things, the following grounds: the best interests of the minor children; her mental health conditions which she established by providing two psychological reports; the hardship that would result from refusing the application.
The Immigration Officer refused the Applicant’s and her children’s H&C application by finding that:
- the decision was not contrary to the best interest of the children;
- there was lack of a specific diagnosis and evidence that treatment of her mental health condition would be interrupted if deported; and
- there was no evidence that her spouse’s business could not function if her spouse resided abroad with his family.
Eastman Law Office challenged that refusal decision in the Federal Court by filing an Application for Leave and Judicial Review in the Federal Court of Canada.
We successfully argued before the Federal Court that the Immigration Officer did not properly assess the best interest of the Applicant’s children which requires the identification and selection of the best option available for the well-being and development of a child, but instead focused on what was not contrary to their best interest.
We also successfully argued that the Immigration Officer missed important key evidence, particularly, the second psychological report for the Applicant conducted after an extensive clinical interview.
Finally, Eastman Law Office further successfully argued that the Immigration Officer made a reviewable error by finding that the family could also maintain contact through other means and not just physical communication, and that the Applicant’s spouse’s business could thrive even if he left Canada with his family.
The Federal Court ultimately accepted and agreed with Eastman Law Office’s aforesaid legal arguments that the Immigration Officer’s decision was unreasonable. The Court granted the Applicant’s Judicial Review application and set aside the Immigration Officer’s decision, referring it back to a different decision-maker for redetermination.
