By Sukhram Ramkissoon 

Earlier this year, I highlighted the plight of a Guyanese family consisting of two children who are residents of Canada pleading to be reunited with their parents, who were formerly permanent residents.

By way of background, Amir and his parents were granted refugee status in Canada in 2004 and became permanent residents in 2006. However, they lost their permanent resident status in 2019 when their refugee claims were cessated under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) based on their repeated returns to Guyana.

Before their removal to Guyana in July 2019, they filed H&C applications. The daughter was a 14-year-old Canadian citizen at the time of the application and was left behind in the care of the extended family in Canada. The minor daughter was born in Canada.

In the children’s bid to be reunited with their parents, they filed two humanitarian and compassionate applications, and both were refused. They challenged their last negative decision to the Federal Court of Canada for review.

In their judicial review, they challenged the decision in which the H&C application was based on several factors, including their establishment in Canada, their daughter’s mental health condition, and the best interests of their Canadian child. 

At the hearing, the judge found the negative decision flawed in its assessment of the best interests of the child, rendered the decision unreasonable, and granted the application for judicial review.

Amir, who was previously represented by my son, Ronald Ramkissoon, had his H&C application approved and became a Canadian permanent resident. Amir’s parent’s H&C application was refused on August 28, 2020, but that decision was returned for redetermination, as their challenge to the Federal Court of Canada was successful. Unfortunately, the redetermination resulted in a second refusal on September 29, 2023.

The second refusal is the decision subject to judicial review, that I am discussing in today’s article.

The learned judge agreed that the decision was unreasonable regarding the best interests of Amir’s sister. The assessment of the sister’s best interests is indecipherable. The decision reviews evidence submitted to illustrate the impact of the parents’ separation from their daughter on her best interests and notes that the factors support the reunification of the daughter with her parents in Canada. These factors are given “positive weight.”

It is hoped that in this third request, the immigration officer will consider this judgment, considering the learned judge’s ruling, given the Federal Court has agreed with the applicant’s arguments on three occasions, finding that the previous officer’s decision was unreasonable.

Good luck and hope Amir’s family will soon be reunited in Canada.

SUKHRAM RAMKISSOON  is a member of CICC and specializes in Immigration Matters at No. 3089 Bathurst Street, Suite 219A, Toronto, Ontario, Phone 416 789 5756.