When "Settled" Works Against You: The Alabi Family and the May 6, 2025 Decision.
A recent Federal Court decision has cast a critical eye on refusing a Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application for a family who first entered Canada in September 2018. The family, including two teenage children, had faced a series of negative immigration outcomes, including a refused refugee claim and a twice-refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).
The family, who had already navigated a complex and ultimately unsuccessful refugee claim and PRRA process, were hoping for a positive outcome on their second H&C application. However, a Senior Immigration Officer denied their request in June 2023. This decision has now been overturned by the Federal Court in Alabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 827, accessible here: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/528103/index.do.
Madam Justice Go, in her well-reasoned judgment, identified two critical errors in the Officer's assessment, both carrying significant implications for future immigration cases, particularly those involving children and mental health considerations.
One of the most concerning aspects of the initial decision was the Officer's treatment of the best interests of the [Alabi children]. Having spent a significant portion of their formative years in Canada, attending school, making friends, and becoming active in their community, their successful integration was acknowledged. Yet, the Officer used this very integration as a reason to suggest they would not face undue hardship upon returning to Nigeria, where they had spent their early childhood.
The Federal Court firmly rejected this logic. Citing Supreme Court precedent, Justice Go emphasized that a child's integration in Canada should not be twisted into a predictor of easy adjustment to a potentially disruptive and challenging return to their country of origin. The focus, the Court stressed, must be on what truly lies in the best interests of the child, a consideration that appeared to be overlooked in the initial assessment.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted a significant flaw in the Officer's evaluation of the mental health evidence presented. The family had provided reports detailing the mental health struggles of the mother and one of the children. While the Officer conceded that their mental health might worsen upon removal, the availability of mental health treatment in Nigeria was cited as a mitigating factor.
This reasoning was deemed unreasonable by the Federal Court. Justice Go reiterated the principle established by the Supreme Court: the potential deterioration of an applicant's mental health due to removal is a crucial factor that must be carefully weighed, regardless of the healthcare resources available in their home country. The Officer's reliance solely on the existence of treatment in Nigeria to dismiss this concern was a fundamental error in the assessment.
Ultimately, this Federal Court decision serves as an important reminder of the principles that must guide H&C assessments. It underscores the paramount importance of genuinely considering the best interests of children, ensuring their integration in Canada is not used to minimize potential hardship. It also reinforces the obligation of immigration officers to thoughtfully evaluate mental health evidence and acknowledge the inherent distress that removal can cause, irrespective of available resources elsewhere.
The case has now been sent back for redetermination by a different officer, offering the [Alabi family] a renewed hope for a compassionate consideration of their circumstances. This decision could have broader implications, urging immigration authorities to adopt a more nuanced and empathetic approach, particularly when the well-being of children and vulnerable individuals is at stake.
