Ajayi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 177 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Assess Child’s Special Needs

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of the Ajayi family’s H&C application for PR. The applicants relied on establishment, hardship, and the best interests of their two children, including their older son’s ADHD, learning disability, mild intellectual delays, and specialized educational needs. The Court granted judicial review because the officer did not meaningfully assess the evidence concerning the child’s medical, psychological, and educational circumstances.

Key Principle

A proper BIOC assessment requires more than identifying a child’s diagnosis or listing supporting documents. The officer must meaningfully examine the child’s particular age, needs, development, medical circumstances, educational accommodations, and likely impact of relocation. Where substantial evidence concerns a child’s special needs, simply stating that equivalent services may be available abroad does not amount to sufficient analysis.

Background

The applicants came to Canada in 2018 with two minor children and later applied for H&C relief. Their older son, James, had been diagnosed with ADHD-Combined type, a learning disability, and mild intellectual delays, and was enrolled in specialized programming tailored to children with ADHD and developmental challenges.

The officer acknowledged his diagnosis but gave the factor limited weight because the applicants had not shown that comparable programs or support would be unavailable in Nigeria.

Court Findings

• BIOC Was the Determinative Issue

The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the applicants’ other arguments concerning establishment or the H&C legal test. The central defect was the officer’s failure to sufficiently consider the best interests of the child.

• Special-Needs Evidence Required Individualized Analysis

The applicants submitted objective evidence concerning James’ diagnosis, psychological health, schooling requirements, and specialized supports. The officer was required to assess how relocation would affect those specific needs rather than treating the issue primarily as one of service availability abroad.

• Merely Listing Evidence Was Insufficient

The decision referenced the psychiatrist’s letter and educational program but did not substantively analyze them. The Court emphasized that mentioning documents does not demonstrate that their significance was actually considered.

• Educational Impact Was Not Meaningfully Addressed

James was enrolled in a specialized seven-year program designed for children with ADHD and developmental delays. The officer did not examine the consequences of disrupting this program or the effect on the educational accommodations he was receiving.

• Medical and Psychological Needs Were Overlooked

The record contained evidence concerning James’ diagnosis and psychological circumstances. The reasons did not explain how relocation would affect his treatment, stability, development, or ongoing medical and psychological support.

• BIOC Required Greater Attention

The Court reiterated that a child’s interests must be well identified, defined, and examined with substantial attention. Because the officer did not assess the totality of the relevant evidence, the BIOC analysis was unreasonable and the entire H&C decision could not stand.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and returned the application to another officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ajayi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 177 (CanLII)