The Federal Court reviewed the
refusal of Zarife Chehimi’s TRP application. She sought temporary status to
remain in Canada while her H&C application was processed, relying on the
interests of her Canadian-born child and difficult conditions abroad. The Court
dismissed judicial review because the officer reasonably assessed the limited
evidence submitted and was not required to conduct independent research or
develop arguments on the applicant’s behalf.
Key Principle
A TRP is exceptional and highly
discretionary relief requiring compelling evidence beyond ordinary
inconvenience. Although an officer must consider the best interests of an
affected child, the assessment is limited by the evidence and submissions
provided. The officer is not required to investigate family law, obtain
country-condition materials, or construct risk arguments that the applicant did
not advance.
Background
The applicant entered Canada on a
work permit and later applied for spousal sponsorship. Her husband withdrew the
sponsorship while she was pregnant, and they separated shortly afterward.
She applied for a TRP and work
permit extension while pursuing H&C relief. She submitted an interim child
and spousal support order and general letters stating that returning abroad
would not be suitable for her and her son.
Court Findings
• TRP Relief Required
Compelling Circumstances
A TRP is a temporary privilege
intended to provide flexibility in exceptional cases where strict application
of immigration legislation would otherwise exclude a person. The applicant
therefore had to demonstrate circumstances amounting to more than inconvenience
or a general desire to remain while another application was processed.
• Child’s Best Interests Were
Considered
The officer acknowledged the
interim support order and considered the child’s circumstances. However, the
application contained no custody documentation, evidence of legal restrictions
on travel, or detailed information showing how departure would specifically
affect the child’s welfare.
• Officer Was Not Required to
Investigate Custody Law
The applicant argued that the
officer should have questioned whether she could remove the child without the
father’s consent. The Court held that the officer was not required to
independently research parental rights or family law issues that had not been
established through the application materials.
• Best-Interests Assessment
Was Evidence-Driven
In the TRP context, the child’s
interests are considered within the broader requirement for compelling reasons.
Based on the limited evidence provided, it was reasonably open to the officer
to conclude that the child-related circumstances did not justify exceptional
temporary relief.
• Country-Condition
Submissions Were Too General
The support letters stated only
that conditions abroad were unsuitable or not ideal. They did not identify
particular risks, hardships, or challenges that the applicant and her child
would face, nor did they include objective country-condition documentation.
• Officer Had No Duty to
Gather Risk Evidence
The applicant argued that the
officer should have consulted official documentation or conducted an internet
search. The Court rejected this position because the burden remained on the
applicant to present her strongest evidence and arguments supporting the TRP
request.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the
application for judicial review and upheld the TRP refusal. No question was
certified.
Case Citation:
Chehimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1070 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
