The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of permanent
residence applications submitted by Ethiopian siblings Simegn Adege Bayeh and
Gebremikael Adege Bayeh under the Family Class. Their brother sponsored them
after their parents died. The officer found that neither applicant qualified as
an orphaned sibling because both were over 18 when the applications were filed
and that the evidence did not justify humanitarian and compassionate relief.
The Court dismissed judicial review, finding the officer’s assessment
reasonable.
Key Principle
Adult siblings do not qualify under the orphaned-relative
provision in subsection 117(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations unless they were under 18 when the sponsorship application was
submitted. Humanitarian and compassionate relief may still be considered, but
applicants must provide persuasive evidence of dependency, hardship, the best
interests of affected children, or exceptional circumstances. On judicial
review, the Court does not reweigh evidence where the officer’s analysis is
rational and responsive to the record.
Background
The applicants and their siblings became orphans after their
mother died in 2009. Their older brother, Dessie, later became a Canadian
permanent resident and sponsored Simegn, Gebremikael, and their younger sister
Meseret in 2020.
Meseret’s application was approved because she was under 18
and met the definition of an orphaned sibling. Simegn and Gebremikael were 20
and 24 when they applied, so they did not qualify under subsection 117(1)(f).
The applicants argued that Dessie had cared for them after
their mother’s death and continued to support them financially. They relied on
a municipal letter, two money-transfer receipts sent to an uncle, phone-card
receipts, and submissions about possible persecution and family separation.
The officer concluded that the evidence did not establish
long-term financial support, direct communication, a legal parent-child
relationship, or sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Court Findings
• Age Requirement Was Properly Applied
The Court held that the applicants’ ages had to be assessed
when their sponsorship applications were submitted. Because they were adults at
that time, they did not qualify as orphaned siblings under the Family Class
provision.
• Dependency Assessment Was Reasonable
The officer considered whether the applicants were
financially or emotionally dependent on Dessie. The record contained only two
transfers of approximately CAD $400 from 2018 and limited phone-card evidence.
The Court found it reasonable to conclude that this did not establish long-term
support or a de facto dependent relationship.
• Municipal Letter Did Not Establish Legal Custody
The officer acknowledged the letter stating that Dessie
cared for the siblings but reasonably found that it was neither an adoption
order nor a custody order creating a legal parent-child relationship.
• H&C and Best Interests Analysis Was Adequate
The officer considered family separation, Meseret’s
interests, persecution in Ethiopia, and the applicants’ circumstances. The
Court found no material evidence was ignored and no reviewable error in the
humanitarian and compassionate assessment.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review
applications. The officer’s findings that the applicants were not members of
the Family Class and had not established sufficient humanitarian and
compassionate grounds were upheld. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Bayeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1168 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
