Farooq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1391 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Narrowly Assessed Elderly Applicant’s Family Separation

The Federal Court reviewed Rukhsana Farooq’s H&C refusal. The 75-year-old applicant had no close family in Pakistan and relied on establishment, hardship, medical needs, and the best interests of her Canadian grandchildren. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer assessed her hardship too narrowly and relied excessively on uncertain alternatives.

Key Principle

An H&C assessment must substantively consider the hardship actually advanced. Where an elderly applicant’s central concern is living alone without family support, it is insufficient to focus only on whether paid assistance could manage medication. Officers must also avoid diminishing family-separation hardship by relying heavily on immigration options that are unavailable or inherently temporary.

Background

The applicant’s husband died in January 2019. Her two children, two grandchildren, seven siblings, and cousins lived in Canada, leaving her without close family in Pakistan. She had diabetes, balance problems, weak eyesight, and high blood pressure, and relied on others for insulin injections and glucose monitoring.

Court Findings

• Officer Narrowed the Hardship to Medical Assistance

The officer focused on whether the applicant could hire a nurse or personal support worker in Pakistan to administer medication. The Court held this reframed the case too narrowly. Her claim was not simply that she needed medical assistance, but that she would be living alone at an advanced age without family support.

• Family Separation Was the Core Hardship

The applicant’s evidence emphasized the emotional and practical consequences of separation from all close family members. A paid caregiver might address injections or glucose checks, but could not replace the familial presence and support forming the central basis of the H&C request. The officer failed to substantively weigh this aspect.

• Evidence About Past Assistance Was Not Misunderstood

The applicant argued that the officer wrongly suggested she had managed independently in Pakistan after her husband’s death. The Court disagreed. The reasons acknowledged that her daughter stayed with her and that a neighbour was later paid to provide meals and medical assistance, so this evidence was not ignored.

• Temporary Alternatives Were Given Too Much Weight

The officer relied on possible alternatives to permanent residence, including visitor-record extensions and the parent-grandparent sponsorship program. The Court found this unreasonable because these options were either unavailable or inherently insecure. Temporary status could not be treated as an adequate substitute for permanent residence when assessing family separation.

• Parent Sponsorship Was Not a Realistic Current Remedy

The applicant and her daughter had entered the parent-grandparent sponsorship process but were not selected, and a super visa had also been refused. The officer nonetheless relied on future sponsorship as a possible solution. The Court held that an unavailable and uncertain pathway should not materially diminish the existing hardship.

• Exceptional Hardship Was Not the Basis of the Decision

The applicant argued that the officer improperly required exceptional hardship. The Court did not decide the case on that issue, finding that the isolated use of “exceptional” did not establish an unlawful threshold. The proposed certified question was therefore not dispositive.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No serious question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Farooq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1391 (CanLII)