I’ve beforehand written on this weblog about how Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC’) has tailored an exceptionally strict method to returning purposes for incompleteness. I’ve additionally written in Coverage Choices about how irritating this method will be, as a result of one in every of its major functions seems to be to permit politicians to boast about lowered processing occasions, whereas ignoring the truth that the expertise of people who’re truly making use of is definitely usually longer than beforehand. I wrote:
The present inflexible triage system distorts a good comparability of processing occasions. Suppose a person applies to sponsor a partner to immigrate to Canada and forgets to incorporate in one of many types town the place a non-accompanying brother was born. Beforehand, processing may need been delayed by two to a few months whereas IRCC contacted the household, knowledgeable them of the error and requested they supply the knowledge. Now, IRCC would as an alternative return the appliance one to 2 months after it’s submitted, and the household must resubmit. If some supporting paperwork have expired, they might need to reobtain them, and the method can simply take a number of months. Below the earlier system, this delay would have added two to a few months to the processing time. Below the Liberals’ triage system, technically there isn’t a delay as a result of processing doesn’t begin till the appliance is resubmitted. So whereas the federal government can boast of lowered processing occasions, candidates are regularly worse off, and the time that it takes IRCC to approve their immigration purposes is lengthened.
A number of latest Federal Courtroom choices present simply how strict IRCC is presently being.
Karami v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) – Expired Passport
On this case, Mehrdad Karami utilized for everlasting residency below the Federal Expert Employee Class. Whereas his advisor accurately entered his passport particulars within the on-line types, they mistakenly uploaded an expired passport as an alternative of the present one. In consequence, IRCC rejected the Categorical Entry software for being incomplete as a result of submission of the expired passport. Madam Justice Elliot decided that this was cheap, stating that:
The documentary proof submitted by the Applicant in help of the appliance knowledge – his passport quantity, date of problem and date of expiry – was merely not supported by the submission of the expired passport which accommodates totally different data.
G. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 71
On this case, the Applicant submitted an software for everlasting residency below the Federal Expert Employee Class. The appliance guidelines requires an official letter from a monetary establishment, itemizing all accounts, printed on the establishment’s letterhead, and together with the monetary establishment’s identify and speak to data. As an alternative, for proof of funds, the Applicant uploaded copies of financial institution statements, mutual funds, and so forth., however didn’t present a letter on the monetary establishment’s letterhead.
In consequence, IRCC rejected the appliance for being incomplete, because the Applicant submitted downloaded materials from the web site with out an official letter or financial institution contact particulars.
Justice Brown decided that this was cheap, stating that:
I agree with the Applicant that the laws don’t specify the style of proof of the required monetary data to be filed. Whereas the laws do set out the requirement to offer proof of settlement funds, they don’t specify what’s, or just isn’t accepted as proof; they’re silent as to the means by which an applicant might fulfill the duty to reveal adequate institution funds. All events are in settlement so far as is the Courtroom.
As a matter of coverage, IRCC as a division determined that it wished to have sure data (on this case proof of monetary data to help the required settlement funds) introduced with verification not solely by the Applicant (who should confirm all data she or he submits) however verified additionally by the monetary establishment itself by means of an “official letter” containing the coordinates of the signing officer. The coordinates would clearly be helpful to facilitate any due diligence straight with the monetary establishment the Visa Officer might determine to undertake.
Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 199
Right here, the Courtroom dominated that it was cheap to reject a sponsorship software resulting from a typo and the failure of the applicant to double verify their software. The Courtroom famous:
The Applicant clearly feels aggrieved and disillusioned by the consequence of his mistake, that he characterised as a minor typographical problem. He seems to carry the Minister totally accountable for what has occurred and says that he had no alternative to right his error. This isn’t the case.
The directions to candidates on the Curiosity to Sponsor Internet Type are crystal clear. All candidates are emphatically advised to:
Ensure that this data is right. It should be the identical as what you’ll put in your software, when you’re invited to use. Double-check all fields earlier than submitting.
Enter the identify and date of delivery as it’s in your passport, journey or identification doc.
[Emphasis added.]
There isn’t a reason the Applicant didn’t comply with these clear directions. He clearly initiated the issue by not checking the date of delivery he entered. Had he noticed these easy directions there would have been no want for this software for judicial evaluation. The Applicant’s place seems to be that if he doesn’t comply with the clear directions to double verify the knowledge he’s submitting, then the Minister is required to look at the rationale for any discrepancy and help him to be able to transfer his sponsorship software ahead. Given the quantity of candidates, this might not be attainable. Furthermore, that is the second time the Applicant has didn’t comply with directions. The directions made it clear that he’s the particular person accountable for the accuracy of any data he submits and that discrepancies might have hostile penalties. The Applicant is making an attempt to keep away from that accountability on this software.
Thompson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 914
This was a case by which the Federal Courtroom dominated that IRCC’s choice to reject an software was unreasonable.
The IRCC Categorical Entry guidelines advised candidates that:
You will need to present proof that you simply accomplished your post-secondary schooling. Examples of proof of schooling embrace a diploma and/or diploma.
On this case, Mr. Thompson uploaded a doc from the College of Alberta certifying his completion of post-secondary schooling. Nonetheless, IRCC rejected his software, stating that he had not supplied a diploma or diploma.
The Federal Courtroom disagreed with IRCC’s choice, ruling that the majority cheap folks would count on licensed data from the registrar of a good Canadian college to be adequate proof of schooling below the Canadian Expertise Class (CEC). The courtroom additionally highlighted that the “Directions for Proof of Training” webpage implies that different forms of paperwork, past these particularly talked about, might function legitimate proof.
Amiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2022 FC 929
In a brief choice delivered from the bench Justice Grammond dominated that in Categorical Entry candidates don’t have to submit supporting paperwork for components that they don’t require factors for.
De Lara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 203
Even when an software is incomplete if an officer asks for the lacking paperwork it provides rise to a reliable expectation.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1690
The Federal Courtroom held that the place somebody gives a doc after the appliance is made however earlier than a choice is rendered that it’s unreasonable for a visa officer to not think about it a part of the appliance.
I agree with the Respondent that there was no obligation on the Officer to request additional paperwork from the Applicant. Nonetheless, within the context of this software, the place it’s not disputed that an harmless mistake was made importing the paperwork and that the Applicant took steps to right the error inside the timeline and earlier than a proper choice was made, it’s my view that the schooling paperwork ought to have been thought-about and addressed within the Determination. Both they need to have been handled as a part of the appliance, or an evidence given within the Determination advising the Applicant why they may not be handled as a part of the appliance, and that the Applicant might resubmit the complete package deal of paperwork once more earlier than the expiration of the timeline below the Coverage. In not doing so, it’s my view that the Determination lacked adequate transparency and justification.
Goel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 275
Madam Justice Turley affirmed that IRCC returning purposes for incompleteness is justiciable, not less than in Categorical Entry circumstances the place an applicant contests whether or not the appliance was incomplete.
Recommendation to Candidates
The lesson of those circumstances is obvious. It’s crucial that candidates verify and double verify the guidelines of any program that they’re making use of to previous to submitting their software. For instance, as the next alternate between an immigration consultant and the IMM Reportal that was obtained by means of an Entry to Info Act request states, IRCC will return a Household Class software for being incomplete if the applicant features a marriage license or report of solemenization as an alternative of a wedding certificates.
I’ve efficiently judicially reviewed Categorical Entry purposes that have been unreasonably returned for incompleteness. Nonetheless, in these situations candidates had complied with the checklists.
Additionally it is necessary that candidates verify and double verify what the guidelines says previous to submitting an software, and never simply after they begin the method. As a result of Categorical Entry is an internet software with an internet guidelines, what’s required can change with out warning, together with after candidates have already learn them and begun assembling paperwork.
