Docket: IMM-19900-24
Citation: 2026 FC 290
Toronto, Ontario, March 3, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GHAZANFAR MUHAMMAD |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Ghazanfar Muhammad [Applicant], is a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [Pakistan] who obtained and lost his Canadian refugee status after he was found inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act]. Having been married to a Canadian citizen since 2017 with whom he raises three children, he applied for permanent residence under the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class [PR Application] seeking an exemption related to his lack of status and inadmissibility based on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. The Applicant’s PR Application was denied by an officer [Officer] of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] by decision dated October 23, 2024 [Decision].
[2] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision on the basis that it is not transparent or intelligible as the Officer’s reasons for rejecting an H&C exemption are not apparent. The Applicant also submits that it was a reviewable error for the Officer to have failed to address the Applicant’s alternative request for a Temporary Resident Permit [TRP], which request consisted of a single line found at the end of his counsel’s written submissions on the PR Application.
[3] For the more detailed reasons that follow, while I find that the Decision is sufficiently transparent and intelligible, I am granting this application in respect of the Officer’s failure to address the Applicant’s TRP request based on a long-standing line of authority from this Court which has consistently held that there are no particular requirements governing the form of TRP applications.
II. Facts
A. The Applicant’s immigration history
[4] The Applicant fled Pakistan due to his fear of being persecuted on the basis of his sexual orientation. He entered Canada using a fraudulent passport under the identity of Shahid Sujawal, a UK citizen, which he did not disclose, either at his hearing or in his Personal Information Form.
[5] The Applicant was found to be a Convention refugee on March 16, 2011; however, upon application by the Minister, the Refugee Protection Division vacated his status on June 25, 2021, based on a finding that he is inadmissible for misrepresentation. The Applicant was issued a Deportation Order on November 22, 2021.
[6] The Applicant has been married to a Canadian citizen [Spouse] since November 21, 2017, and they have two children and also raise the Spouse’s child from her former marriage. On December 20, 2021, the Applicant filed a PR Application seeking an exemption pertaining to his lack of status and his inadmissibility on H&C grounds asserting his establishment in Canada, the best interests of his children [BIOC] and hardship.
B. The Decision
[7] The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant is a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class, nor did he qualify under the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Public Policy Under A25(1) of IRPA to Facilitate Processing in accordance with the Regulations of the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class, (Public Policy), (last modified: 12 March 2018). The Applicant has not challenged these aspects of the Decision.
[8] The Officer considered the Applicant’s particular circumstances and the H&C factors presented by the Applicant and weighed them individually:
(i) The Applicant’s establishment in Canada was “favourably weighted”
and given medium to heavy weight; however, the Officer was not satisfied that over time, the Applicant would not be able to achieve a similar level of establishment in Pakistan;
(ii) The Officer found that the BIOC strongly favoured the Applicant remaining in Canada as the family’s comfort, security and integration in Canada would be “destroyed”
if they departed Canada considering the children’s ages and the fact that the children would not benefit from the same level of support enjoyed in Canada, due to economic and security crisis, conservatism and the “broken education system”
in Pakistan;
(iii) The Officer acknowledged that there would be some degree of hardship in the Applicant’s removal from Canada, especially with respect to the resulting separation between the Applicant and his wife and his children, and the Officer gave this factor “medium to heavy weight”
; and
(iv) The Officer gave minimal weight to the Applicant’s expressions of remorse.
[9] Ultimately, after conducting a global assessment of the factors, the Officer concluded that the H&C factors presented did not outweigh the Applicant’s ineligibility for the class, and specifically, his ineligibility for lack of status due to his inadmissibility under paragraph 40(1)(c) of the Act. The Officer concluded that an exemption on H&C grounds was not justified, and the Applicant’s PR Application was therefore refused.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[10] The parties agree that in assessing the merits of the Decision, the applicable standard of review is that of reasonableness as described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. This Court must start by considering the Officer’s reasons read in light of the evidentiary record and consider whether the Decision falls within a “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”
that constrained the Officer (Vavilov at para 86 and Sailsman v Canada (National Revenue), 2014 FC 1033 at para 27). Reasonableness review is not a de novo review, nor does it allow for a reweighing of the evidence that was before the decision maker (Vavilov at paras 124-125).
[11] While the parties disagree on the standard of review that applies to the Officer’s failure to process the Applicant’s TRP request, I need not decide this issue as nothing turns on the standard of review.
IV. Analysis
[12] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable for two reasons: the decision is neither intelligent nor transparent; and by reasons of the Officer’s failure to address his TRP request.
A. Is the Decision transparent and intelligible?
[13] First, the Applicant submits that the Decision lacks transparency and intelligibility as the outcome of the Officer’s global assessment is neither evident nor obvious (citing Trinh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 66 at paras 22 and 24 [Trinh]). In Trinh, Justice Gleeson held that where the individual H&C factors are mixed, the outcome of the global assessment flowing from the mix of considerations identified in the Officer’s analysis should consist of more than a summary followed by a peremptory conclusion (Trinh at para 25). The Applicant also submits that in conducting a global assessment of H&C factors, the Officer displayed a segmented and punitive approach rather than one based on a genuine, compassionate and cumulative balancing of positive and negative considerations (Suthakar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1285 at paras 24 and 32 [Suthakar]).
[14] I agree with the Respondent that the authorities relied on by the Applicant are distinguishable. First, unlike in Trinh, the Decision cannot be characterized as a mere summary followed by a peremptory conclusion. Nor did the Officer dwell unnecessarily on the basis for the Applicant’s inadmissibility as the Court found in Suthakar (Suthakar at para 29). Rather, the Officer conducted a compassionate and detailed review of the H&C factors and then reasoned:
A global assessment of all aspects of the application, including the Humanitarian and Compassionate factors presented, was considered, with all relevant factors weighted in the decision. I am alert and sensitive to the best interest of the children involved. The applicant’s submissions with respect to Humanitarian and Compassionate factors have been sympathetically noted, with significant weight placed on his spousal relationship and the best interest of the children involved. However, these are not the only determinative factors, and I do not find that the Humanitarian and Compassionate factors requested by the applicant outweigh his not meeting the eligibility requirements, of the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class, specifically for the applicant not meeting the Public Policy for lack of status due to his IRPA 40(1)(c) inadmissibility and the subsequent deportation Order issued 22nov2021. I therefore do not find that the Humanitarian and Compassionate factors justify a grant for exemption from a requirement of the Act or Regulations…
[15] Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, I find the Officer’s global assessment to be transparent and intelligent. The Officer’s assessment required a weighing of positive H&C factors carrying varying degrees of weight against a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation. The Officer considered the finding of inadmissibility to be the determining factor. There is no ambiguity in what the Officer was weighing and indeed, the Applicant takes no issue with the substance of the Officer’s assessment of the H&C factors individually, which underscores that that the Applicant’s submission ultimately amounts to a disagreement with the weight given to the H&C factors in the overall assessment, which is not a valid basis for this Court’s intervention (Vavilov at para 125).
B. Was the Officer required to address the Applicant’s request for a TRP?
[16] Finally, the Applicant argues that the Officer’s failure to consider his TRP is reason alone to quash the Decision and remit it back to the IRCC for redetermination. The Applicant’s request consisted of the line, “[a]lternatively, a TRP is requested”
at the end of his counsel’s 13-page letter providing submissions on the PR Application and H&C exemption.
[17] The Respondent submits that the Officer was not required to treat the Applicant’s brief request as if it were a TRP as neither the Applicant’s PR Application, nor his response to the procedural fairness letter referred to this relief. The Respondent points to section 10 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations], which provides that an application made under the Regulations shall be made in writing using the form, if any, provided by the Department. The Respondent also notes that the Applicant did not follow the TRP process posted on IRCC’s publicly available website. That process provides for the submission of forms, fees and supporting documents, none of which were provided by the Applicant.
[18] I am unable to find a basis for departing from a long line of decisions of this Court dating back to 2004, which have consistently held that there are no particular requirements governing the form of TRP applications (Japson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 520 at para 24, Connell v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1316 at para 47) such that even a single line submission is sufficient to trigger the duty on the part of an IRCC officer to consider a TRP request (Lee v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1461 at paras 17, 18). While section 10 of the Regulations refers to “a form,”
as the Applicant points out, this is satisfied by the form used for the Applicant’s PR Application, which is consistent with Dhandal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 865 at paragraph 15, in which the Court held that a request for a TRP is implicit in an application for PR.
[19] I am therefore satisfied that the Officer erred in failing to address the Applicant’s request for a TRP.
V. Conclusion
[20] The application for judicial review is granted for the sole purpose of determining whether a TRP should be issued to the Applicant.
[21] Neither party raised a question for certification, and I agree that no such question arises.
Email this Content