Docket: IMM-2476-25
Citation: 2026 FC 212
Ottawa, Ontario, February 12, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk
|
BETWEEN: |
|
NANCY SANDHU |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated December 10, 2024 of an officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”
) (the “Officer”
), refusing to grant the Applicant a permanent resident visa as a member of the family class (the “Decision”
).
[2] The Applicant argues that the Decision is a breach of the duty of procedural fairness because the Officer made the Decision prior to the expiration of the 30-day response period set out in the procedural fairness letter (“PFL”
) and that it was unreasonable.
[3] The Respondent argued that based on the information submitted in the Application, the decision was reasonable. In oral argument, the Respondent conceded the breach of procedural fairness but argued that remitting the application back for reconsideration would serve no purpose.
[4] For the reasons that follow, this application is granted.
II. Background
[5] The Applicant, Nancy Sandhu, is a citizen of India.
[6] The Applicant married Naveen Bilsa on January 26, 2023 in India. The Applicant applied for permanent residence under the Family Class-Spousal Sponsorship process.
[7] Mr. Bilsa applied for permanent residence under the Express Entry program. His application was approved and on January 6, 2023, he received an email stating “Congratulations you are a permanent resident now and you can download your CoPR”
. At the time, he was in India, and he was unable to download the CoPR until his return to Canada on March 13, 2023.
[8] On September 24, 2024, Avinash Suthar, an Immigration Consultant, submitted a letter of apology and request for consideration to IRCC. In the letter, Mr. Suthar acknowledges errors made in the processing of Ms. Sandhu’s application, including erroneous advice provided to her sponsor, Mr. Bilsa; that he was not required to advise IRCC of the change in his marital status.
[9] On November 25, 2024 the Applicant received a PFL that stated:
… I have determined that you do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.
Section 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations stats that a “foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if … the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident, and at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.”
You were not declared or examined as a family member of the sponsor at the time of your sponsor’s application for permanent residence to Canada. You are therefore not a member of the family class.
I would like to provide you with the opportunity to respond and provide any additional information that you would like to be considered. You have thirty (30) days from the date of this letter to submit additional information in this regard. …
[10] On December 10, 2024, the Applicant received the Decision, which states:
I have now completed the assessment of your application for a permanent resident visa as a member of the family class, the class in which you applied. I have determined that you do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.
Subsection 12(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a foreign national may be selected as a member of the family class on the basis of their relationship as the spouse, common-law partner, child, parent or other prescribed family member of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.
Section 117(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, 2002 defines who is a member of the family class. A foreign national is a member of the family class if, with respect to a sponsor, the foreign national is
(a) the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner;
Subsection 117(9) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states that no foreign national may be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if
(d) the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member or a former spouse or former common-law partner of the sponsor and was not examined.
Your sponsor became a permanent resident of Canada on March 13, 2023. You and your sponsor were married on January 1, 2023. Your sponsor failed to declare you as his dependent at the time when his application was been processed and at the time of landing. You are therefore, a person described in section 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. As a result, I have determined that you are not a member of the family class.
Subsection 11(1) of the Act provides that a foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that you are not inadmissible and that you meet the requirements of the Act. I am therefore refusing your application.
[11] On December 12, 2024, Mr. Suthar submitted a further letter to IRCC requesting that the Applicant’s application be reconsidered. Of note, Mr. Suthar states that the Applicant’s application was transferred to a new representative on June 25, 2025.
[12] On December 12, 2024, Applicant’s current counsel submitted a letter to IRCC requesting a reconsideration of the Decision.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[13] Reasonableness review is the presumptive standard of review applicable to the merits of an administrative decision. Reasonableness is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (Vavilov) at paras 12-15, 25, 86, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 85).
[14] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
[15] The standard of review for procedural fairness issues is correctness, or akin to correctness (Vavilov at para 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54–56). The reviewing court must consider what level of procedural fairness is necessary in the circumstances and whether the “procedure followed by the administrative decision maker respect[s] the standards of fairness and natural justice”
(Chera v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 733 at para 13). In other words, a court must determine if the process followed by the decision maker achieved the level of fairness required in the circumstances (Kyere v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 FC 120 at para 23, citing with approval Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79).
[16] The issues in this application are:
IV. Analysis
A. Procedural Fairness
[17] The Applicant argued that there has been a breach of procedural fairness in this matter. Specifically, the Officer’s Decision of December 10, 2024 was issued ahead of the expiration of the thirty (30) days IRCC provided the Applicant to respond to the PFL issued on November 25, 2024.
[18] The Respondent acknowledged that there had been a procedural error in this case. However, the Respondent argued that the error must be considered in its proper context. The Respondent argued that remitting the matter back for further consideration would serve no purpose as the outcome is inevitable; Yassine v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), 1994 CanLII 19689 (FCA).
[19] The Respondent pointed to the information in the record that suggested that the Applicant’s sponsor was aware of the obligation to disclose the change in his marital status. In particular, the “WhatsApp”
conversations between her sponsor and his then immigration consultant, where the Sponsor inquired if he needed to update his information.
[20] The Respondent argued that the onus is on applicants to ensure that the information submitted in an application is complete and accurate. Applicants are generally responsible for the consequences that follow their choice of representation; Cao v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 450 at 31. Further, applicants are responsible for the actions of their retained representative; Frenkel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7270 (FC) at paras 10-11. I agree.
[21] Finally, the Respondent noted that submissions made to the IRCC that post-date the Decision are not being challenged in this Application.
[22] In my view, the Applicant was not provided a full and fair opportunity to respond to the PFL. The Officer’s decision was issued before the expiration of the response period set out in the PFL.
[23] I am not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that the outcome of this matter is inevitable considering the circumstances, namely the sponsor’s failure to disclose the change in his marital status. I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant has not challenged the IRCC decisions post-dating the Decision. The Applicant made a request for reconsideration on December 12, 2024. However, the December 12, 2024 letters, which are part of the record for this Application, highlight information that should have been considered by the Officer prior to issuing the Decision. These letters pre-date the expiration of the response period set out in the PFL. In my view the outcome of further review is not inevitable.
V. Conclusion
[24] The breach of procedural fairness is dispositive of the Application; accordingly, I will not address the reasonableness of the Decision.
[25] The parties did not raise any questions for certification and I agree there are none.
Email this Content