Zapien De Hernandez c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)

Zapien De Hernandez c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)

The decision was unreasonable because the IRCC officer failed to conduct a s.96 analysis of the applicant's gender-based and age/vulnerability-related fears, failed to engage with and analyze documentary evidence specific to feminicides and regional conditions in Chihuahua, and improperly treated documented gendered risks as merely generalized population risks; matter is set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

Citation
2025 CF 1597
Parties
Partie Demanderesse: Patricia Zapien de Hernandez; Partie Défenderesse: Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Federal Court Judgment Remitted for Reconsideration
Outcome
Judicial review allowed; IRCC decision set aside and matter remitted for new examination by a different immigration officer
Legal Topics
ERAR (pre Removal Risk Assessment), Gender Based Violence, Risk of Persecution (s.96), Risk of Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Torture (s.97), Reasonableness Review (vavilov)
Source Language
French
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights ERAR (pre Removal Risk Assessment) Gender Based Violence Risk of Persecution (s.96) Risk of Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Torture (s.97) Reasonableness Review (vavilov)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Zapien de Hernandez

Partie Demanderesse

Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration

Partie Défenderesse

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Federal Court Judgment Remitted for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IRCC officer unreasonably failed to assess the applicant's risk as a woman under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the IRCC officer unreasonably failed to assess personal risk related to mental health and vulnerability under ss.96-97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the officer adequately considered and addressed the documentary evidence and contradictory evidence on file

Ratio Decidendi

The decision was unreasonable because the IRCC officer failed to conduct a s.96 analysis of the applicant's gender-based and age/vulnerability-related fears, failed to engage with and analyze documentary evidence specific to feminicides and regional conditions in Chihuahua, and improperly treated documented gendered risks as merely generalized population risks; matter is set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

Court Disposition

Judicial review allowed; IRCC decision set aside and matter remitted for new examination by a different immigration officer

Orders

  • The judicial review is allowed.
  • The decision of the IRCC agent dated 29 February 2024 is set aside.