Mendoza De Jesus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 32 : Judicial Review of Same-Sex Spousal Sponsorship Refusal and Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Gracie Mendoza De Jesus’ conjugal partner permanent residence application. The principal applicant was excluded from the family class under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations because her Canadian sponsor had not declared her as a common-law partner when the sponsor previously obtained permanent residence. The officer also refused humanitarian and compassionate relief. The Court upheld the fairness of the process but granted judicial review because the H&C assessment failed to meaningfully consider the applicants’ long-term same-sex relationship and the legal, cultural, and psychological pressures that had required them to conceal it.

Key Principle

An H&C assessment must be holistic, empathetic, and responsive to the applicant’s unique circumstances. An officer must not rely predominantly on the same non-disclosure that created the statutory exclusion to also deny the relief intended to soften its harsh consequences. In cases involving same-sex relationships maintained across jurisdictions where such relationships are criminalized or socially condemned, the officer must meaningfully consider how years of forced concealment may have influenced the parties’ understanding, conduct, and reluctance to formally declare the relationship.

Background

The applicants began a same-sex relationship in the Philippines in 2004 and lived together from 2005. They concealed the relationship because of religious, familial, and social opposition.

They later moved to the United Arab Emirates, where same-sex relationships were legally prohibited. The sponsor eventually obtained Canadian permanent residence but did not declare the principal applicant as her common-law partner. Consequently, the principal applicant was not examined and became excluded from sponsorship under paragraph 117(9)(d).

The applicants later applied under the conjugal partner class and submitted extensive evidence of their relationship, including shared financial records, communications, photographs, personal statements, and third-party support letters.

After a procedural fairness letter, they requested several extensions while waiting for immigration records. The officer granted multiple extensions but did not respond to the final request submitted one day before the existing deadline.

Court Findings

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred

The applicants received approximately 175 additional days beyond the original response period. The final request was made only one day before the deadline, and procedural fairness required a meaningful opportunity to respond, not an indefinite one.

• Extensive Relationship Evidence Was Treated Superficially

The officer reduced decades of financial interdependence, communication, cohabitation, personal statements, and support letters to brief chronological observations without assessing their substance.

• Same-Sex Relationship Context Was Ignored

The officer did not consider how legal prohibition and social hostility in the Philippines and UAE required secrecy and may have shaped the sponsor’s failure to formally declare the relationship.

• Non-Disclosure Was Improperly Given Dispositive Weight

The officer relied heavily on the sponsor’s failure to declare the relationship without contextualizing her explanation that the relationship had never felt socially or legally validated. This undermined the remedial purpose of H&C relief.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review. The applicants were given 15 days to supplement their H&C submissions, after which the matter was to be redetermined by a different officer.

Case Citation:

Mendoza De Jesus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 32 (CanLII)