{"id":13167,"date":"2025-07-28T09:35:44","date_gmt":"2025-07-28T13:35:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cila.co\/?p=13167"},"modified":"2025-07-26T07:08:34","modified_gmt":"2025-07-26T11:08:34","slug":"jenkel-decision-federal-court-of-canada-halts-deportation-to-the-u-s-due-to-lgbtq-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cila.co\/fr\/jenkel-decision-federal-court-of-canada-halts-deportation-to-the-u-s-due-to-lgbtq-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"Jenkel Decision: Federal Court of Canada halts deportation to the U.S. due to LGBTQ+ risk"},"content":{"rendered":"

Authored by Sarah Mikhail and Noreen Khimji, Canadian Immigration Lawyers, Smith Immigration Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The devolving situation for American LGBTQ+ citizens, particularly transgender and non-binary individuals, remains a growing area of discussion for Canadian immigration practitioners. The 2024 U.S. election, and actions taken since, led to <\/span>an unprecedented uptick in requests<\/span><\/a> from Americans looking for pathways to migrate to Canada. Many immigration lawyers are proceeding with caution, however, given the numerous hurdles for these individuals, including the historic implications that come with both the Canadian parliament and the judiciary\u2019s long-standing acceptance of the United States as a \u201csafe country.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A recent Federal Court of Canada decision examined the relevance of the change in country conditions in the United States in the context of a PRRA application. A stay of removal was granted for a non-binary citizen of the United States, pending judicial review of their refused PRRA application. In the case of <\/span>Jenkel v. MCI, 2025 FC 1178<\/span><\/i>, dated July 2<\/span>nd<\/span>, 2025, the Applicant argued that the PRRA Officer erred in solely referring to a 2024 country condition report for the United States, which pre-dated the Applicant\u2019s concerns that the conditions for the trans and non-binary community had deteriorated following President Trump\u2019s 2025 inauguration. Justice Blackhawk\u2019s decision found that the Officer\u2019s reliance on 2024 country condition documentation is unreasonable “given the public\u2019s general awareness of the evolving situation in the US and the changing conditions for certain designated groups in the US\u201d.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Applicant argued that the\u00a0 PRRA Officer failed to assess the country conditions since President Trump took office, and failed to consider in their decision impacts on transgender and non-binary people. This included President Trump\u2019s commitment within his inaugural address to make the <\/span>official policy of the United States government<\/span><\/a> \u201cthat there are only two genders, male and female\u201d. Justice Blackhawk further noted that, the PRRA Officer \u201cfailed to consider recent evidence of the conditions that may have supported a reasonable fear of persecution.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While the impacts of this decision remain limited \u2013 and our Canadian immigration system is seeing <\/span>proposed changes<\/span><\/a> and narrowing pathways for all immigrants \u2013 it marks an important recognition of the need to consider up-to-date dangers faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in their country of citizenship, including in the United States, and leaves the door open for further discussion of the treatment of marginalized communities under this new administration.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Authored by Sarah Mikhail and Noreen Khimji, Canadian Immigration Lawyers, Smith Immigration Law<\/p>","protected":false},"author":115,"featured_media":13171,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,12,6],"tags":[413,644,78,161,684,435],"class_list":["post-13167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-stakeholder-engagement","category-subject-matter-expertise","category-thought-leadership","tag-case-law","tag-fcc","tag-federal-court","tag-human-rights","tag-jenkel","tag-judicial-review"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t