Trynchuk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Trynchuk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2024-11-28
Neutral citation
2024 FC 1911
File numbers
IMM-911-23
Decision Content
Date: 20241128
Docket: IMM-911-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1911
Vancouver, British Columbia, November 28, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
VIOLETTA TRYNCHUK
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mrs. Violetta Trynchuk (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”), refusing her application for permanent residence from within Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H and C”) grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Ukraine. She entered Canada in January 2022, as a visitor. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, she applied for permanent residence in Canada as a Convention refugee. However, she withdrew that application in August, 2022. In December 2022, she applied for permanent residence on H and C grounds.
[3] The Applicant based her H and C application upon harm to her mental health if forced to return to Ukraine, and she provided a psychological report in support of that assertion.
[4] Ukraine is subject to an Administrative Deferral of Removals (“ADR”) at this time and the Applicant is not subject to any removal proceedings.
[5] The Officer refused the Applicant’s application on the grounds that an ADR is in place.
[6] The Applicant argues that the Officer failed to consider the evidence, in particular the contents of the psychological report.
[7] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and that there is no basis for judicial intervention.
[8] Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.
[9] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”; see Vavilov, supra, at paragraph 99.
[10] I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments. The Officer considered the psychological report, but did not find it determinative of the Applicant’s application.
[11] The Officer noted that the ADR now in place means that the Applicant is not in danger of removal during the current conflict.
[12] In my opinion, the decision meets the applicable standard of review and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
[13] In closing, I note that dismissal of this application for permanent residence on H and C grounds does not bar the Applicant from making another application, presenting up-to-date evidence about her establishment in Canada and about hardship to her, if required to seek permanent residence in the usual way, that is from outside Canada.
JUDGMENT IN IMM-911-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-911-23
STYLE OF CAUSE:
VIOLETTA TRYNCHUK v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
CALGARY, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING:
NOVEMBER 6, 2024
REASONS AND JUDGMENT:
HENEGHAN J.
DATED:
November 28, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Michael Sherritt
For The Applicant
Meenu Ahluwalia
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sherritt Greene Barristers and Solicitors Calgary, Alberta
For The Applicant
Attorney General of Canada Calgary, Alberta
For The Respondent