Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 327 : Refusal Upheld Where IAD Reasonably Denied H&C Relief for Permanent Resident Who Spent Most of Five-Year Period Outside Canada

Yong Huang sought judicial review after the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) upheld a finding that he had breached the permanent resident residency obligation under section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Huang did not dispute the breach, having spent fewer than 200 days in Canada during the relevant five-year period. Instead, he argued that humanitarian and compassionate considerations justified retaining his permanent resident status. The Federal Court found the IAD’s assessment reasonable and dismissed the application.

Key Principle

An IAD decision refusing humanitarian and compassionate relief for a residency obligation breach will be reasonable where the IAD meaningfully considers the applicant’s explanations, establishment, hardship and the best interests of a child directly affected and provides a rational explanation for the weight assigned to those factors. The IAD need not expressly address every constituent element where its reasoning can be understood and is justified by the evidence and applicable law.

Background

Huang, a Chinese citizen, became a Canadian permanent resident in 2001. His first marriage ended in divorce in 2010, and he remarried a Chinese citizen in 2013. After his PR card expired in March 2017, his application for a permanent resident travel document was refused for non-compliance with the residency obligation.

Before the IAD, Huang acknowledged that he had lived in Canada fewer than 200 days between November 30, 2012 and November 29, 2017. He relied on several H&C considerations, including caring for his parents in China, remaining with his wife during fertility treatment, his Canadian assets and property, his church membership, and his relationship with his daughter.

The IAD concluded that Huang had predominantly chosen to live and work in China and had not adequately explained why he could not have returned to Canada sooner.

Court Findings

• IAD Meaningfully Considered Huang’s Explanations

The Court rejected Huang’s argument that the IAD effectively proceeded as though he had offered no explanation. The IAD specifically considered his parents’ care needs, his wife’s miscarriage and fertility treatments, and evidence concerning whether alternative care arrangements were available. It was entitled to find those explanations insufficient to justify the extensive absence.

• H&C Factors Were Reasonably Assessed

The IAD considered Huang’s Canadian property and financial assets but found limited evidence of social attachment beyond church membership. It also reasonably found limited hardship because Huang continued to live and work predominantly in China, could support himself and his family there, and had assets and close family in China. His wife had no Canadian status, and loss of PR status would not permanently prevent Huang from seeking future entry or status in Canada.

• Best Interests of Daughter Were Addressed

The IAD considered Huang’s daughter, who lived in the United States with her mother. Huang maintained some contact and had paid lump-sum child support. On that evidence, the IAD reasonably concluded that loss of his Canadian permanent resident status was unlikely to cause his daughter undue adverse impact.

Outcome

The Federal Court found that the IAD engaged with the central evidence and provided a coherent, transparent and intelligible H&C analysis. The judicial review was dismissed, and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 327 (CanLII)