Struggles of Vincy woman in obtaining PR in Canada

By Sukhram Ramkissoon

In this week’s article, I discuss an application made by Doris (not her real name) on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Doris is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines who arrived in Canada in 2011. After arriving, she filed a claim for refugee protection, which was refused in 2013. In 2019, she filed a humanitarian application that was refused in 2021. She remained in Canada after her application was denied.

A warrant was executed against Doris in 2023 because she had never left Canada as previously instructed. She was given an opportunity to file a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) before her removal from Canada, and she also filed a second humanitarian application without the assistance of counsel. A senior officer considered both applications and refused them in March 2024. Doris immediately sought judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada for both refusals. In December 2025, the Federal Court concluded that both Doris’ PRRA and H&C decisions were unreasonable and must be set aside.

In Doris’ PRRA application, she raised her fear of returning to St. Vincent as a gay woman, stating that she would be killed or prosecuted if returned. In her written statement, she noted that homosexuality is illegal in St. Vincent and referred to her experiences of living in forced denial and fear. She described her relationship with a woman in St. Vincent, her agreement to marry a man due to family and community pressure, her decision to reveal her sexuality to her family and some friends in 2012, the angry reaction of her parents, and her desire to live without fear.

In Doris’ H&C application, she relied on her establishment in Canada and the hardships she would face if returned to St. Vincent. She referred to her role as a member of the Canadian cricket team, her volunteer work, and her ongoing relationship with a same-sex partner in Canada. With respect to the latter, she described the difficulty of separating from her partner, her lack of connections in St. Vincent, and a feeling of being “at a loss as to what the future holds.” In support of her application, Doris submitted joint banking documents, a lease agreement with her partner, letters of support from Cricket Canada and the charitable organization with which she volunteered, as well as photographs of herself with her partner.

As is often the case, the same officer considered both Doris’ PRRA and H&C applications. The Federal Court noted that when an officer decides a PRRA and an H&C application in close succession, the decisions must be based on the totality of the evidence contained in both applications, as established by case law.

In the PRRA decision, the officer noted that Doris identified her risk in returning to St. Vincent as being based on her sexual orientation. The officer relied on a 2012 negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, in which the RPD was not satisfied that Doris had established her sexual identity.

In refusing the H&C application, the officer stated that although Doris had been in Canada for 13 years, her “time alone” was not sufficient to warrant relief. The officer also found that she had provided little explanation as to why she would be unable to maintain her common-law relationship if returned to St. Vincent. While acknowledging that Doris might face “some hardship,” the officer concluded that any hardship would be temporary due to family support.

The Federal Court found that the existence of Doris’ same-sex relationship was central to both applications. Her PRRA application was based on her sexual orientation, and her H&C application relied on her establishment and hardship in reference to that relationship. The officer did not dispute that homosexuality is unlawful in St. Vincent, a fact supported by the National Documentation Package published by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and cited in Doris’ memorandum.

Although Doris did not reference these materials in her PRRA application, the court reiterated that officers have a duty to consult relevant country documentation, particularly when an applicant is unrepresented. The court found that the officer failed to meaningfully assess country conditions.

The Federal Court concluded that the unexplained inconsistency between the officer’s assessment of the evidence in the PRRA and H&C decisions rendered both unreasonable. Judicial review was granted, and both applications were remitted for reconsideration by a different officer.

Good luck Doris.

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

#CaribbeanCamera #ImmigrationJustice #LGBTQRights #VincyCommunity #HumanitarianGrounds #PRRA #FederalCourt #CaribbeanCanadians #MigrationStories #QueerRefugees #ImmigrationMatters #CanadaImmigration