By Sukhram Ramkissoon

In 2019 my office submitted a Humanitarian and Compassionate Application on behalf of a young woman from St. Vincent, who I will refer to as Sharon (not her real name). She came to Canada in 2012 to escape the harassment and threats she was receiving from a male police officer. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of this ordeal.

In 2013, Sharon began trying to regularize her status. She submitted a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and an H&C application through a gentleman who falsely claimed to be an immigration consultant. She paid this man large sums of money and he offered her a guarantee that she will succeed with her applications.

When these applications were refused, she consulted our firm, and we submitted a second H&C application in 2019. We submitted that her life is at risk in her country due to threats from the police officer, and that she was in full-time employment and with very strong ties to church and community.  We also submitted medical reports outlining her ailments.

In refusing the application, the officer found that Sharon demonstrated steps toward community integration to be “impressive” but also found “insufficient information or documentary evidence to indicate a history of stable employment or income” and “insufficient evidence to indicate that she had legal authorization to work.” The officer also reviewed Sharon’s bank statements and found “insufficient evidence which is reflective of a pattern of sound financial management.”

The officer then considered Sharon’s statements that her life was at risk in St. Vincent due to the threats from the police officer. However, the Officer reasoned that Sharon had been absent for 8 years, and there was little evidence that the individual had a continuing interest in her.

With respect to Sharon’s mental health, the officer accepted that she was diagnosed with PTSD, and considered the medical report, as well as a letter from Sharon’s social worker. However, the officer stated: “With respect to the noted anxieties linked to the threats made by the officer, as previously noted there is insufficient evidence to indicate that he continues to pursue her since she left St. Vincent. I am also cognizant of more recent documentation, namely, a report dated 7 October 2019 which is prepared by a social worker. The worker notes that the applicant was seen by the psychiatrist at the center who was able to assist the applicant with her sleep issues and help her feel much calmer.” The officer also noted that despite the applicant’s traumatic experience she has begun to show some great strengths and promises in being able to contribute to society.

The officer also found overall, there was insufficient evidence to elaborate on hardships linked to Sharon’s mental health considerations if she returned to St. Vincent. In the alternative, the officer found insufficient evidence to indicate why Sharon could not access health services in St. Vincent if the need arose, or how that could pose hardships.

Sharon challenged the negative decision at the Federal Court and in this judicial review application, Sharon raised several issues with the decision. The learned judge stated “in my view, the officer’s treatment of the medical evidence with respect to the impact of her return to St. Vincent is dispositive of this judicial review. I, therefore, decline to address the other issues.”

Sharon argued that the officer misapprehended the evidence and found that her mental health had improved. She stated that this led to a conclusion that mitigates hardship on removal. The evidence before the officer included a medical report from a psychiatrist, dated December 2013 and January 9, 2014. The psychiatrist diagnosed Sharon with PTSD as a result of her experiences in St. Vincent and states in the report “I have absolutely no doubt that should she be forced to return to St. Vincent that no [sic] only would her life be in danger because of this man (who seems very persistent in his resolve to track her down and hurt her), but it will also obviously lead to a significant deterioration of her mental health. Even the idea of being forced to go back had her shaking in my office….”

The officer also had a report dated October 2019 from a social worker who treated Sharon. The social worker states that “she would experience great hardship in going back to her country of origin, which may only re-traumatize her, having an astounding effect on her mental health.” The medical evidence confirms that Sharon suffers from PTSD as a result of her experiences in St. Vincent. The medical evidence also confirms that her condition would deteriorate if she was removed from Canada

Despite this, the officer concluded that the evidence of hardships linked to mental health considerations is “insufficient.” The officer did not explain why, or how, the evidence is insufficient, but simply dismisses the evidence and referred to several case laws where officers “must consider the likelihood of the mental health condition worsening as a result of the removal.”  In this case, the officer failed to engage with this evidence to justify the conclusion that Sharon would not experience hardship on removal to St. Vincent. The failure of the officer to do so renders the decision unreasonable, ruled by the learned judge.

The judicial review was granted, and the matter is remitted for redetermination by a different officer. Good luck Sharon!

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.