Goh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 364 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Misjudged Elderly Applicant’s Dependence and Resettlement

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Siew Leng Goh’s H&C application for PR. The 79-year-old applicant had lived in Canada for decades and depended emotionally, financially, and to some extent physically on her extended Canadian family. The Court granted judicial review because the officer’s conclusions about her ability to resettle independently were inconsistent with the evidence and with findings the officer had already accepted.

Key Principle

An H&C officer must assess an elderly applicant’s ability to resettle in light of age, personality, vulnerability, financial dependence, and the actual quality of family support. It is unreasonable to accept that an applicant is highly dependent on Canadian family while simultaneously assuming, without evidentiary support, that she can readily build new relationships, manage finances independently, and replace meaningful in-person support through remote communication.

Background

The applicant had lived in Canada since the 1980s, had never worked, and relied heavily on her aunt and cousins. She had no family support in Malaysia, was estranged from her daughter, and described her Canadian relatives as the only family willing and able to assist her.

The officer gave her emotional and financial dependence on Canadian family a high degree of positive weight but concluded that separation hardship could be mitigated through communication, future visits, financial support, and new relationships abroad.

Court Findings

• High Dependence Was Accepted

The officer expressly accepted that the applicant depended emotionally, financially, and to a limited extent physically on her Canadian family. That finding was central and was assigned significant positive weight.

• New Relationships Finding Was Inconsistent

The officer nevertheless concluded that the applicant could develop new interpersonal ties after returning to Malaysia. The Court found this inconsistent with the finding that she was reclusive, interacted almost exclusively with family, and was of advanced age.

• Remote Contact Was Not Equivalent to Existing Support

The officer suggested that telephone, video calls, and visits could maintain the applicant’s family relationships. The Court held that maintaining contact was not the same as preserving the quality of an emotionally dependent relationship.

• Age and Vulnerability Were Insufficiently Considered

The Court rejected comparisons between the applicant and younger relatives living elsewhere. Her age, gender, reclusive disposition, and vulnerability had to inform whether resettlement and separation were realistic.

• Financial Independence Was Assumed Unreasonably

Although the applicant had assets, her Canadian family managed them on her behalf. The officer did not reasonably explain how she could independently manage those assets while resettling abroad at her age.

• Overall Assessment Was Imbalanced

Given the officer’s own findings of substantial dependence, the expectation that the applicant could reintegrate without serious emotional and financial harm was unreasonable. The overall H&C assessment therefore lacked coherence.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Goh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 364 (CanLII)