Loyola Vendrell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 942 : Federal Court Sets Aside Family Violence TRP Refusal After Officer Failed to Properly Assess Ongoing Coercive Control and Section 24 IRPA Factors

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Maria de Lourdes Tatiana Loyola Vendrell’s application for a Temporary Resident Permit under the Ministerial Instructions for foreign nationals experiencing family violence. The officer accepted that she had suffered serious abuse during her marriage but concluded that she was no longer experiencing abuse and was no longer dependent on her spouse for immigration status. The Court granted judicial review, finding that both conclusions were unreasonable and inconsistent with the purpose of the family violence TRP program.

Key Principle

Family violence is not limited to recent physical assaults. It may include psychological abuse, threats, stalking, unwanted contact, financial control, and the use of immigration status as a means of coercion. Officers must assess the full pattern of abuse and cannot deny relief merely because a victim has physically separated from the abuser. The family violence TRP program is intended to help victims escape control, stabilize their status, consider immigration options, and make informed decisions about their future.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, married Alexander Lopera in 2018. After the marriage, he subjected her to physical, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse. He repeatedly threatened to have her deported and used her lack of immigration status to control her.

The physical abuse included choking, throwing her down stairs, and holding her underwater in a hot tub. Police intervened on multiple occasions, criminal charges were laid, and a restraining order was issued. Despite periods of calm, the threats and violence continued.

The applicant returned to Mexico in October 2022 but came back to Canada in February 2023 to begin divorce proceedings. Her spouse continued calling her against her wishes, refused to sign divorce documents, and allegedly tracked or followed her. Shortly before her TRP interview, he made a disturbing comment about her car brakes failing.

IRCC refused the application, finding that she was no longer experiencing abuse because there had been no recent physical encounters and that her status was not dependent on the abusive relationship because no sponsorship application had been filed.

Court Findings

• Ongoing Abuse Was Unreasonably Rejected

The Court found that the officer focused too narrowly on the absence of recent physical violence. The evidence showed continuing unwanted contact, suspected surveillance, threats, coercive control, and interference with the divorce process.

The broader pattern demonstrated that the applicant remained affected by family violence.

• Separation Did Not Eliminate Immigration Dependency

The Court held that denying relief because the applicant had already separated from her spouse undermined the program’s purpose. Her only apparent path to stable status had previously depended on him, and she sought the TRP to gain time to complete the divorce, stabilize her situation, and consider future immigration options.

A policy that penalized victims for leaving an abusive relationship could pressure them to remain with their abusers.

• General TRP Factors Also Required Consideration

The Court found that family violence applicants remain applicants under section 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Officers must therefore consider broader TRP factors in addition to the family violence instructions. The officer’s general conclusion that no exceptional or compelling reasons existed was unsupported by meaningful analysis.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Loyola Vendrell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 942 (CanLII)