Ayoun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 358 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Improperly Required Personalized Violence Risk

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Eliyahu Ayoun’s H&C application for PR, which included his wife and two sons. The officer considered establishment, the best interests of the then-minor child, and country conditions. The Court granted judicial review because the officer unreasonably assessed the country-condition evidence by effectively requiring the family to demonstrate a greater risk of violence than the general population.

Key Principle

In an H&C assessment, adverse country conditions cannot be discounted merely because the applicant faces the same risk of violence as other members of the population. The relevant inquiry is whether the country conditions contribute to hardship in the applicant’s particular circumstances, not whether the applicant can establish a uniquely elevated or personalized risk compared with the general population.

Background

The applicant and his family entered Canada in July 2018 while he held a work permit. They applied for H&C relief in April 2021.

The officer refused the application after considering their establishment in Canada, the best interests of the younger son, and conditions in Israel.

Court Findings

• Country-Condition Analysis Was Determinative

The Court found that the officer’s treatment of the country-condition evidence was sufficient to dispose of the judicial review. It was therefore unnecessary to address the applicant’s other challenges to the H&C decision.

• Officer Appeared to Require Greater-Than-General Risk

The officer’s analysis effectively required the family to demonstrate that they faced a greater risk of becoming victims of violence than the general population. The Court found this approach unreasonable.

• Generalized Violence Could Still Be Relevant to H&C

The fact that a risk is shared by many people does not automatically make it irrelevant to an H&C hardship assessment. Country conditions must still be assessed as part of the applicant’s overall circumstances.

• H&C Analysis Is Distinct From a Protection Claim

The Court’s conclusion reflects that an H&C application is not limited to determining whether an applicant faces a uniquely personalized risk. Hardship arising from broader country conditions may remain relevant even where the applicant is not more exposed than others.

• Other H&C Factors Were Not Decided

The applicant also challenged the officer’s conclusions on other aspects of the H&C analysis. Because the country-condition error was sufficient to render the decision unreasonable, the Court did not address those arguments.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Ayoun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 358 (CanLII)