Truong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 697 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Assessed Establishment Without Considering Disruption and Hardship

The Federal Court reviewed Tu Quyen Truong’s refusal of permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The officer acknowledged her education, employment, volunteer work, and social connections in Canada but concluded that her establishment was only typical and did not justify relief. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to assess the hardship caused by disrupting her established life in Canada.

Key Principle

In an H&C assessment, the issue is not whether an applicant’s establishment is “exceptional” compared to others. The decision-maker must assess whether the disruption of that establishment and the hardship resulting from leaving Canada support humanitarian relief. A finding of ordinary establishment does not end the analysis.

Background

The applicant was a Vietnamese citizen born in Malaysia to Vietnamese refugee parents. She came to Canada at age 16, completed high school and college, obtained a post-graduate work permit, worked in Canada, and developed community connections. After losing status, she applied for H&C relief based on her establishment in Canada, hardship upon return to Vietnam, and adverse country conditions.

Court Findings

• Officer’s “Typical Establishment” Finding Was Not Itself Unreasonable

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the officer improperly required an exceptional level of establishment. The officer’s statement that her establishment was “typical” was considered descriptive and consistent with the H&C framework. The Court accepted that many newcomers develop employment, education, and community connections.

• Officer Failed to Analyze the Impact of Losing Establishment

The Court found the main error was not the characterization of her establishment but the failure to consider what would happen if she had to leave Canada. The officer recognized her accomplishments, including studies, volunteer work, employment, and independence, but did not analyze whether disrupting those connections created hardship.

• Establishment Is Not a Threshold Requirement

The Court emphasized that H&C analysis is not about reaching a particular level of establishment that automatically results in relief. There is no “magical threshold” where establishment becomes sufficient. Instead, the question is whether the disruption of that establishment weighs in favour of granting an exemption.

• Hardship Comes From Disruption, Not Simply the Amount of Establishment

The Court distinguished between the degree of establishment and the consequences of losing it. A person may have ordinary establishment but still experience significant hardship if required to abandon employment, education, relationships, and community ties developed over many years. The officer failed to assess this distinction.

• Officer Did Not Meaningfully Address Return Consequences

The officer stated that the applicant’s original purpose of coming to Canada had been satisfied because she came to study. The Court found this did not address the relevant H&C question. The issue was not whether her initial purpose had been completed, but whether requiring her to leave would cause hardship due to the life she had built in Canada.

• Minister’s Attempt to Justify Decision Failed

The Minister argued that the officer had adequately considered the impact of leaving Canada. The Court rejected this interpretation because the reasons did not demonstrate meaningful engagement with the consequences of disrupting the applicant’s establishment.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal dated March 19, 2021, and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Truong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 697 (CanLII)