Docket: IMM-508-25
Citation: 2026 FC 412
Ottawa, Ontario, March 30, 2026
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MOHAMMED NAIEM AHMADZAI |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(delivered from the bench by videoconference on March 30, 2026)
[1] The applicant, Mr. Ahmadzai, and his mother both applied for permanent residence pursuant to a public policy for the resettlement of certain categories of Afghan nationals. Their applications were refused because they did not satisfy the conditions of that public policy. The officer also denied their request to be exempted from certain conditions on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. Moreover, the officer considered whether Mr. Ahmadzai and his mother could be added as de facto dependents to Mr. Ahmadzai’s brother’s successful application under a different public policy. However, the officer found that this was impossible, as the brother only requested their inclusion after he became a permanent resident, contrary to the requirements of the latter public policy.
[2] Mr. Ahmadzai and his mother brought separate applications for judicial review of this decision. While they are represented by the same lawyer, they did not seek consolidation of their files. As a result, the two applications proceeded separately.
[3] Last October, my colleague Justice Angus Grant dismissed the mother’s application: Ahmadzai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1754. When he filed his further memorandum of argument a few weeks ago, counsel for Mr. Ahmadzai did not disclose that decision. This is of particular concern, as identical arguments are put forward in both cases.
[4] Judicial comity is a principle whereby a judge of this Court will follow an earlier decision made by another judge regarding the same issue. The situations of Mr. Ahmadzai and his mother are substantially similar. At the hearing, counsel for Mr. Ahmadzai confirmed that he was making the same arguments as in the mother’s case, perhaps under a slightly different packaging. He also stated that in his view, Justice Grant’s decision was wrong.
[5] In my view, Justice Grant addressed all the issues raised in the present application. In particular, I am not persuaded that the wording of a previous version of the public policy changes anything.
[6] In these circumstances, I will follow Justice Grant’s decision as a matter of judicial comity. I will simply add that I am in full agreement with his reasons and I have not been persuaded by counsel’s submissions that he erred.
[7] Therefore, I will dismiss the present application for judicial review.
Email this Content