Gomes de Oliveira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 495 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Unreasonably Discounted Domestic Violence Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Adriana Gomes de Oliveira’s H&C application for PR after the breakdown of her common-law relationship. The applicant alleged domestic violence, including psychological and financial abuse, as well as threats connected to withdrawal of sponsorship. The Court granted judicial review because the officer approached this evidence without sufficient sensitivity and unreasonably demanded corroboration.

Key Principle

An H&C officer must assess allegations of domestic violence compassionately and in light of the reality that such abuse may be psychological or financial, may go unreported, and may leave little corroborating documentation. While an officer may prefer some evidence over other evidence, unexplained demands for corroboration can amount to a veiled credibility concern and render the decision unreasonable.

Background

The applicant initially applied for PR under the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class. After the relationship ended, she asked that the matter proceed on H&C grounds, relying in part on alleged domestic violence and the circumstances surrounding the relationship breakdown.

Court Findings

• Officer Accepted Some Evidence but Rejected Other Allegations Without Explanation

The officer accepted that the applicant may have witnessed her former partner’s drug use, that the relationship ended, and that she experienced anxiety. However, the officer demanded corroboration for other allegations without adequately explaining why those assertions were treated differently.

• Domestic Violence Evidence Was Assessed Insensitively

The officer relied on the absence of police or other official intervention. The Court found this approach insufficiently sensitive to domestic violence that may involve psychological or financial abuse and may never be formally reported.

• Sponsorship Threat Was Not Addressed

The applicant alleged that her former partner threatened to withdraw sponsorship, directly affecting her immigration status. The officer did not meaningfully address this allegation despite its relevance to the power imbalance within the relationship.

• IRCC Domestic Violence Guidance Was Relevant

The Court relied on IRCC program delivery instructions recognizing that little documentary evidence may be available to substantiate abuse. Although the guidance was not binding, it remained relevant when assessing whether the officer’s reasoning was reasonable.

• Corroboration Requirement Created a Veiled Credibility Concern

By discounting the applicant’s domestic violence evidence because it lacked corroboration, without adequately explaining why the evidence was insufficient, the officer effectively raised an unexplained credibility concern. The Court found the reasoning lacked transparency.

• Domestic Violence Error Was Determinative

The Court concluded that the flawed treatment of the domestic violence evidence was sufficient to dispose of the application. It was unnecessary to rely on other alleged errors concerning establishment.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Gomes de Oliveira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 495 (CanLII)