2019
Case Summary
Immigration Law — Immigrants — Sponsorship applications — Members of family class — Children —
Dependent children — Application for immigrant visa — Humanitarian and compassionate considerations
— Application for judicial review of visa officer dismissed — Applicant's mother became permanent
resident of Canada and sponsored two children as dependent children — Applicant was 24 and no longer
dependent child — Applicant applied for permanent resident visa under family class sponsored by mother
and sought exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds — Officer refused application —
Officer was under no obligation to consider whether applicant was de facto family member but6 took into
account all relevant factors to be assessed in that context — Officer reasonably found applicant was
unlikely to endure significant hardship in Philippines — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 25(1) — Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 2.
Federal Court Judgments
Application for judicial review of decision of a visa officer. The applicant, Jem Cantalejo, was a citizen of the Philippines. Cantalejo's mother came to Canada in 2009 as a foreign worker. She was granted permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds in 2016 and successfully sponsored her two younger children, who met the definition of "dependent children". Cantalejo applied for a permanent resident visa under the family class sponsored by his mother. As he was over 22 years of age and no longer met the age limit for a dependent child under the Regulations, he requested an exemption based on H&C grounds. The officer denied the request. The officer determined that Cantalejo was not a member of family class as he was 24 years old when the application was received and there was no indication that he had a physical or mental condition that rendered him unable to be financially self-supporting. The officer concluded that there were insufficient H&C grounds to warrant the requested exemption. Cantalejo submitted that the decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to consider whether he fell within the ambit of his mother's de facto family.
HELD: Application dismissed.
Cantalejo's argument that officer failed to consider whether he met the definition of a de facto family member was unfounded. He did not raise the issue of de facto family members before the officer. The officer did not have obligation to explicitly consider the issue of de facto family members in every case. Even if the officer did not conduct a separate analysis on whether Cantalejo was a de facto family member, the officer of de facto family members. Cantalejo tendered very little evidence to support a level of dependency, both financially and emotionally, in relation to rest of his family. The officer reasonably considered Cantalejo's education and found that he did not have the profile of a person likely to endure significant hardship in the Philippines. The officer also considered the relationship between Cantalejo and his mother, and did not fail to meet the requirements of empathy and compassion.
General relevance - all sectors
Travailleurs (im)migrants et Législateurs
Canada, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Colombie-Britannique, Autres provinces, Fédéral, Nouvelle-Écosse et National relevance
Anglais
