Mac v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1046 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Required the Applicant to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Trong Thuc Mac’s application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Vietnamese applicant relied on his establishment in Canada, de facto family relationships, health, the best interests of several children, and anticipated hardship in Vietnam. Although the officer assigned some positive weight to several factors, the application was refused because the officer concluded that H&C relief was intended for individuals facing “exceptional circumstances.” The Court granted judicial review because this imposed an incorrect legal threshold.

 Key Principle

An applicant seeking humanitarian and compassionate relief under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. The officer must assess all relevant factors globally and determine whether humanitarian and compassionate considerations justify an exemption. While the word “exceptional” may sometimes be used descriptively, a decision is unreasonable where exceptionality is treated as a condition that must be satisfied before relief can be granted.

Background

The applicant entered Canada as an international student in January 2017. His study permit expired in January 2018.

A former spouse later submitted a sponsorship application on his behalf, but it was withdrawn after their relationship ended. The applicant subsequently applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds and requested a temporary resident permit as alternative relief.

He relied on his employment and financial stability, ownership of a nail salon, community support, his sister’s presence in Canada, and his close relationships with his godson and other children.

He also raised concerns about returning to Vietnam based on his Catholic faith, political views, health, employment prospects, and the possible departure of his remaining family members.

The officer gave some positive weight to his employment, community integration, financial stability, supporting letters, and the best interests of the children. However, the officer characterized his establishment as typical and found insufficient evidence of significant hardship.

Court Findings

• Officer Applied an Exceptionality Requirement

The Court held that the officer erred by requiring the applicant to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” before granting humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) relief. This imposed a legal threshold that does not exist under subsection 25(1) of the IRPA.

• Error Occurred at the Decisive Stage
Although the officer individually assessed the applicant’s establishment, family ties, best interests of the children, and hardship evidence, the incorrect legal standard was applied when deciding whether those factors collectively justified H&C relief. This rendered the final assessment unreasonable.

• Exceptional Circumstances Are Not Required
The Court reaffirmed that H&C relief does not depend on an applicant proving unusual, extraordinary, or exceptional circumstances. Instead, officers must determine whether all humanitarian and compassionate considerations, viewed cumulatively, justify granting an exemption.

• Use of the Word Was Determinative, Not Merely Descriptive
The Court distinguished between using the term “exceptional” as a general description and treating it as a mandatory legal requirement. In this case, the officer clearly relied on exceptionality as a condition for relief, which constituted a reviewable error.

• Remaining Arguments Did Not Need to Be Considered
Because the officer applied the wrong legal standard, the Court found the decision unreasonable without addressing the applicant’s remaining arguments. The application was therefore returned to a different officer for reconsideration.

Case Citation:

Mac v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1046 (CanLII)