A Federal Court in Canada has granted a stay of deportation in favour of a Nigerian woman, Shalewa Folashade Oladipupo, and her son, ruling that their removal to Nigeria would expose them to grave risks to their mental health and safety.
The applicants were scheduled for deportation on 29 January 2026, following the refusal of their request for deferral by the Canada Border Services Agency. However, in a ruling delivered on 28 January, Justice Allyson Nowak held that they had satisfied the legal test for a stay of removal.
Court filings reveal that Oladipupo fled Nigeria with one of her twin sons to escape ritual practices allegedly demanded by her husband’s family. She argued that the rituals conflicted with her Christian faith and claimed that non‑compliance would result in death through supernatural means. She also expressed fear of reprisals from family members if returned.
Her initial refugee claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division, which questioned her credibility and suggested internal relocation within Nigeria as a viable option. That decision was upheld on appeal.
Subsequently, Oladipupo sought a deferral of removal, citing her deteriorating physical and mental health, her son’s ongoing education, and a pending humanitarian application. The request was refused by an enforcement officer, who concluded that she was fit to travel and dismissed medical concerns as insufficient.
Justice Nowak found that decision unreasonable. The court accepted medical evidence diagnosing Oladipupo with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, alongside passive suicidal ideation, uncontrolled hypertension, and a degenerative spinal condition. Her physician warned that interrupting treatment could result in life‑threatening outcomes.
The judge rejected the immigration officer’s attempt to distinguish between active and passive suicidal ideation, affirming that risks of suicide constitute irreparable harm under established law. The ruling also criticized immigration authorities for failing to arrange medical or mental health support upon return to Nigeria, thereby heightening the risk.
Given the close bond between mother and child, the court held that the danger extended to both applicants, noting that the harm would be aggravated if the son were returned without his mother. While acknowledging the public interest in enforcing immigration laws, Justice Nowak concluded that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the applicants.
Accordingly, the court ordered: “The motion for a stay of the applicants’ removal is granted.”
