Habte v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 8 : Family Sponsorship Refusal – Adoption Evidence, De Facto Dependency, and BIOC Ignored

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Semhar Gebrezgiabeher Habte’s PR application as the family member of a protected person. The officer was not satisfied that she was legally adopted by her aunt and did not assess whether she qualified as a de facto family member. The Court granted judicial review because the officer rejected foreign adoption evidence without an objective foundation and failed to address central dependency and family-relationship evidence.

Key Principle

Foreign public documents should generally be accepted as authentic unless there is an evidentiary basis for doubting them. Where the record clearly shows emotional and financial dependency resembling a family relationship, an officer may be required to assess de facto family membership even if the applicant does not expressly request that analysis. Relevant child-interest considerations must also be addressed when the evidence establishes continuing dependency on a parental figure.

Background

The applicant alleged that her aunt adopted her after her biological mother died. The aunt later obtained refugee protection in Canada and identified the applicant as her adopted daughter.

The applicant submitted an adoption certificate, birth and death records, childhood photographs, money-transfer evidence, and communications showing an ongoing relationship. The officer nevertheless found that the legal adoption had not been established.

Court Findings

• De Facto Family Relationship Required Assessment

The record contained evidence that the applicant and her sisters had lived together as a family and that her aunt continued to provide financial support. These facts were sufficiently apparent that the officer was required to consider whether the applicant was a vulnerable person emotionally and financially dependent on a family member in Canada.

• Express Request Was Not Necessary

The Minister argued that the officer did not need to assess de facto family membership because the applicant had not specifically requested it. The Court rejected this position because a first-instance officer must respond to material issues clearly arising from the evidence and statutory context.

• Adoption Certificate Was Rejected Without Objective Evidence

The adoption decree purported to have been issued by an Eritrean court. The officer declared it inauthentic without identifying reliable country evidence, verification results, or applicable legal requirements showing that the issuing court lacked authority or that the document’s form was invalid.

• Document’s Appearance Was an Insufficient Basis

The officer relied partly on the adoption document being printed on plain paper. Without evidence that authentic adoption decrees from the relevant authority are issued in a different form, this observation could not reasonably support a finding of fraud or inauthenticity.

• Corroborating Relationship Evidence Was Inadequately Addressed

The applicant provided photographs, communications, financial transfers, civil records, and evidence that her aunt had consistently identified her as an adopted child. The reasons did not meaningfully analyze how these materials affected the claimed legal or practical parent-child relationship.

• Child-Interest Considerations Were Overlooked

The applicant also argued that her dependency on her adoptive mother required consideration of her best interests. The Court agreed that the officer’s failure to engage with this issue, together with the omitted de facto-family analysis, left the decision unjustified in light of the record.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the PR refusal, and returned the application to a different decision-maker for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Habte v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 8 (CanLII)