Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Alkalheh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court held the Officer's decision was reasonable because the Officer considered the Applicant's evidence and submissions and, as the trier of fact, properly weighed the evidence; therefore no judicial intervention was warranted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • There is no question for certification.

02

Material facts

Parties

Nada M D Alkalheh

Applicant Counsel: Cynthia Eljabu

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Aman Owais

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review (immigration) / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant argued the Officer ignored or misconstrued evidence, unreasonably speculated that she could return to Kuwait, failed to assess hardship tied to her Palestinian identity if returned to Jordan, and applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating establishment in Canada.
Respondent
The Respondent submitted the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and submissions and there is no basis for judicial intervention.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, para 99

    Administrative decisions are reviewed on the reasonableness standard which requires justification, transparency and intelligibility.

  2. 02

    Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s.25(1)

    Humanitarian and Compassionate applications are assessed pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court held the Officer's decision was reasonable because the Officer considered the Applicant's evidence and submissions and, as the trier of fact, properly weighed the evidence; therefore no judicial intervention was warranted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • The Officer considered the best interests of the Applicant's children, noting the daughter was a minor at the time of application and the son was 25.
  • It is the role of the Officer, not the Court, to assess and weigh evidentiary matters.
  • There is no question for certification.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • There is no question for certification.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 10 March 2025

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 10 March 2025

2025 FC 438

Alkalheh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-03-10 Neutral citation 2025 FC 438 File numbers IMM-1509-24 Decision Content Date: 20250310 Docket: IMM-1509-24 Citation: 2025 FC 438 Ottawa, Ontario, March 10, 2025 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:

NADA M D ALKALHEH Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. Nada M D Alkalheh (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration officer (the “Officer”) refusing her request for permanent residence from within Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H and C”) grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant was born in Kuwait in 1973 and lived there as a temporary resident until 2016. She is of Palestinian origin but due to the ancestry of her father, she holds Jordanian citizenship. She has never lived in Jordan. Her husband is also of Palestinian origin and remains in Kuwait. [3] The Applicant came to Canada in 2016 as a visitor, when her son began post-secondary education in Canada. Her Canadian born daughter accompanied her. She submitted her H and C application in May 2022, on the basis of an inability to renew her temporary residence status in Kuwait or to obtain citizenship there. She also relied on alleged discrimination against Palestinians in Jordan, as well as her lack of residence in Jordan. [4] The Officer addressed the Applicant’s submissions as to why she could not return to Jordan or to Kuwait, her establishment in Canda and the best interests of her children. The Officer noted that her son was then 25 years of age. The daughter was then 19 years of age but the Officer took into

account the fact that she was a minor when the H and C application was submitted. [5] The Officer observed that the evidence presented did not show that the Applicant could not obtain citizenship in Kuwait nor that she risks losing her Jordanian citizenship. [6] The Officer addressed the Applicant’s establishment in Canada, including the purchase of a house and a car, and social networks, including letters of support from friends. [7] The Officer considered the best interests of the Applicant’s children. [8] The Applicant now argues that the Officer ignored certain evidence and unreasonably speculated in finding that she could return to Kuwait. She submits that the Officer did not consider the hardship imposed by her Palestinian identity if she were to go to Jordan. Finally, she argues that the Officer applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing her establishment factors. [9] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and submissions of the Applicant and that there is no basis for judicial intervention. [10] Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision here is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness. [11] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the

hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”; see Vavilov, supra, at paragraph 99. [12] I am not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that the decision fails to meet the applicable standard of review. [13] The decision shows that the Officer considered the evidence and submissions made by the Applicant. It is the role of the Officer, not of the Court, to assess the evidence. [14] In the result, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification. JUDGMENT IN IMM-1509-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "E. Heneghan" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1509-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: NADA M D ALKALHEH v. MCI PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ontario DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: March 10, 2025 APPEARANCES: Cynthia Eljabu For The Applicant Aman Owais For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: A & C Law Firm LLP Ottawa, ON For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, ON For The Respondent

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653

Case cited

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s.25(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.