HIV, Stigma, and Justice: Unpacking a Landmark Canadian Immigration Ruling
July 14, 2025
JA v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 124
How do immigration decisions balance an applicant’s past actions against their current hardship and human rights? The recent Federal Court decision in JA v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 124, dives deep into this very question. This landmark case provides crucial insights into the interplay between humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, the duty of fairness, and the critical discretion exercised by immigration officers. It offers vital perspectives on how evidence of hardship, access to healthcare, and discrimination (especially for applicants living with HIV) is assessed, ultimately addressing the delicate balance between an applicant’s past misconduct and the adjudication of their fundamental rights.
Applicant's Journey and the Core Issue
The applicant, JA, is a citizen of Cameroon who has lived in Canada for over 22 years. After arriving in Canada, she was diagnosed with HIV, a health condition that has shaped her immigration journey. JA has made multiple attempts to remain in Canada, including:
- A refugee claim denied in 2004;
- A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) refused in 2011;
- Two previous H&C applications, rejected in 2011 and 2016.
In 2022, JA submitted another H&C application, arguing that the circumstances surrounding access to medication and the stigma faced by individuals living with HIV in Cameroon had worsened. She pointed to changes in Canada’s immigration policies regarding “excessive demand” thresholds, which had previously hindered her applications.
Key grounds for her application included:
- Establishment in Canada: Living in the country for over two decades and contributing to her community.
- The best interests of her goddaughter: JA has a close relationship with her goddaughter, whom she supports.
- Medical hardship: JA emphasized that returning to Cameroon would result in a lack of consistent access to antiretroviral therapy and exposure to significant stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV.
The application was refused by an immigration officer, leading JA to seek judicial review.
The Court's Decision
The Federal Court, presided over by Madam Justice Sadrehashemi, found that the officer’s decision was unreasonable due to several critical flaws in the evaluation of evidence.
- The “Clean Hands” Doctrine
The respondent argued that JA’s misconduct—failing to attend a scheduled deportation and remaining in Canada unlawfully—should bar her from obtaining relief under the “clean hands” doctrine. This principle, as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham (2006 FCA 14), allows courts to deny relief to applicants engaged in misconduct that undermines judicial or administrative processes.
While the court acknowledged the seriousness of JA’s actions, it concluded that her misconduct did not impede the evaluation of the merits of her case. Justice Sadrehashemi noted the importance of striking a balance between deterring misconduct and addressing significant human rights concerns. She referenced Alexander v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2021 FC 762), emphasizing that other mechanisms, such as detention review processes, could deter misconduct without barring judicial review.
2. Evaluation of Evidence on Stigma and Medication
The court determined that the immigration officer’s analysis of JA’s evidence was unreasonable for several reasons:
- Selective Reading of Evidence: The officer acknowledged that JA “may face some hardship as an HIV-positive woman” in Cameroon but failed to consider evidence demonstrating the severity of stigma and discrimination. For example, the officer relied on a study about support groups in Cameroon but ignored findings in the same study that highlighted widespread stigma, limited access to medication, and challenges in securing employment or loans for individuals living with HIV.
- Minimization of Stigmatization: The officer dismissed JA’s experiences of stigma within the Cameroonian community in Canada, suggesting that no country, including Canada, is free from stigmatization. The court found this reasoning flawed, as it failed to address the magnitude of stigma in Cameroon compared to JA’s experiences in Canada.
- Assumptions about Support Systems: The officer assumed that JA’s siblings in Cameroon would provide her with support, despite evidence to the contrary. JA had not disclosed her HIV status to her siblings due to fear of stigma, a fact overlooked in the officer’s reasoning.
- Access to Medication: The officer’s assessment did not address the impact of stigma on JA’s ability to consistently access antiretroviral therapy in Cameroon. Evidence presented by JA indicated that many individuals living with HIV in Cameroon face significant barriers to healthcare due to discrimination.
3. Judgment and Remedy
The court ruled that the officer’s decision lacked transparency, intelligibility, and justification. The H&C application was returned to a different decision-maker for reconsideration. Importantly, the court declined to certify any serious question of general importance, indicating that the issues raised were specific to the circumstances of JA’s case.
Cases Cited and Legal Precedents
Several notable cases were cited in this decision, including:
- Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015 SCC 61): This case emphasized the importance of considering humanitarian and compassionate factors holistically to mitigate the rigidity of immigration laws. The court referenced Kanthasamy to highlight the duty of immigration officers to substantively evaluate all relevant factors presented by applicants.
- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham (2006 FCA 14): The Federal Court of Appeal outlined the “clean hands” doctrine and factors for balancing misconduct against the merits of an applicant’s case.
- Alexander v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2021 FC 762): This case reinforced the idea that deterrence of misconduct can be achieved through mechanisms other than denying judicial review, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.
What We Learn
The decision in JA v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 124, reaffirms the role of the Federal Court in ensuring that immigration decisions are reasonable, evidence-based, and aligned with principles of fairness. JA’s case highlights the challenges faced by marginalized individuals navigating Canada’s immigration system and underscores the importance of a holistic, compassionate approach to H&C applications. The ruling serves as a reminder that the protection of human rights and equitable treatment must remain central to Canada’s immigration processes.