Febrillet Lorenzo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 925 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Treat Domestic Abuse Itself as a Compassionate Factor

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an in-Canada permanent residence application based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant had suffered serious physical, sexual, psychological, and financial abuse from her Canadian permanent resident spouse. Although the officer accepted that the abuse had occurred, the analysis focused primarily on whether the former spouse posed a continuing risk if the applicant returned to the Dominican Republic.

The Court held that this approach missed a central issue: the domestic abuse already suffered in Canada was itself a compassionate factor that had to be meaningfully weighed in the H&C assessment.

Key Principle

Where an H&C applicant has left an abusive relationship and consequently lost the benefit of a spousal sponsorship, the abuse itself may constitute a significant compassionate consideration.

An officer should not limit the analysis to whether the abusive spouse will continue to pose a future risk in the country of return.

The applicant’s experience as a survivor of family violence, the consequences of leaving the abusive relationship, and the support available to the applicant in Canada should be considered as part of the overall H&C assessment.

Background

The applicant was a citizen of the Dominican Republic who came to Canada in 2012. She married a Canadian permanent resident in 2015, who subsequently sponsored her for permanent residence.

The relationship ended, and the couple divorced in January 2017. On the same day, her former spouse withdrew the sponsorship.

The applicant then applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds.

She described extensive domestic violence, including beatings, one of which resulted in a miscarriage, intimidation, degradation, sexual abuse, financial control, threats, and efforts to force her into prostitution to obtain money for her husband’s drugs and alcohol.

The officer accepted that the applicant had suffered physical, sexual, and psychological abuse but refused the H&C application.

Court Findings

The Court found that the officer approached the domestic violence too narrowly.

The officer reasoned that there was insufficient evidence that the former husband would harm the applicant if she returned to the Dominican Republic. However, this failed to recognize that the abuse already suffered was independently relevant to the compassionate assessment, regardless of whether the former spouse posed an ongoing threat abroad.

This error was particularly apparent because the officer’s assessment form identified “domestic violence in Canada” as a possible factor for consideration but marked that category as “Not applicable.”

The Court also noted that IRCC guidance on family violence recognizes the vulnerability of foreign nationals who may feel compelled to remain in abusive relationships because their immigration status depends upon a Canadian spouse or sponsor.

Although such operational guidelines are not legally binding, the officer still had to meaningfully consider the applicant’s circumstances as a survivor of abuse.

The Court further found that the applicant’s support network in Canada should have been assessed through the same lens. Evidence showed that her immediate family had moved to Spain, while extended family, friends, and her church community in Canada were willing to support her.

The officer should also have considered a nurse’s letter concerning the applicant’s generalized anxiety disorder in the context of the accepted history of domestic violence.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant could have submitted stronger evidence overall. However, that did not cure the officer’s failure to meaningfully weigh the accepted domestic abuse as a compassionate factor.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and remitted the matter to a different immigration officer for reconsideration.

Case Citation:

Febrillet Lorenzo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 925 CanLII