Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal from Within Canada Set Aside After Officer Failed to Await for PFL Response

The Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review of a decision refusing the Applicant’s permanent residence application under the Family Class–Spousal Sponsorship process. The Applicant argued that the immigration officer breached procedural fairness by issuing the refusal before the expiry of the 30-day response period provided in a procedural fairness letter (PFL). The Minister conceded that a procedural error had occurred but argued that reconsideration would serve no purpose because the Applicant’s sponsor had failed to disclose the marriage during his own permanent residence application. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the Applicant had not received a full and fair opportunity to respond and that the outcome was not inevitable.

Key Principle

Where an immigration officer provides an applicant with a specific period to respond to a procedural fairness letter, the officer must allow that period to expire before making a final decision. Issuing a decision before the response deadline deprives the applicant of the opportunity to provide potentially relevant information and constitutes a breach of procedural fairness. The Court will not apply the inevitable outcome exception where information that could affect the decision remained available but had not yet been considered by the officer.

Background

The Applicant, a citizen of India, married her sponsor in January 2023 and subsequently applied for permanent residence under the Family Class–Spousal Sponsorship process. The sponsor had previously obtained Canadian permanent residence through Express Entry. Although the sponsor and Applicant were married before the sponsor became a permanent resident, the Applicant was not declared or examined as a family member in his permanent residence application. IRCC subsequently issued a PFL stating that the Applicant appeared to be excluded from the Family Class under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). The PFL expressly gave the Applicant 30 days to submit additional information. However, the officer issued the refusal only 15 days later, before the response period had expired.

Court Findings

• The Applicant Was Denied a Full and Fair Opportunity to Respond

The Court held that the officer’s decision was issued before the expiration of the 30-day response period expressly provided in the PFL. As a result, the Applicant was deprived of the opportunity to provide additional information addressing the officer’s concerns. The Court found this procedural defect sufficient to grant judicial review.

• The Outcome Was Not Inevitable

The Minister argued that the sponsor’s failure to disclose the Applicant during his own immigration process made the refusal inevitable. The Court rejected this submission. Although the Applicant remained responsible for the accuracy of the information submitted and generally bears responsibility for the actions of a retained representative, the record contained additional information in letters submitted before the 30-day period expired that could have been considered by the officer. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded that reconsideration would necessarily produce the same result.

• Reasonableness Was Not Addressed

Because the breach of procedural fairness was dispositive, the Court did not assess whether the underlying refusal was reasonable. The matter was therefore allowed to proceed to a fresh determination after the Applicant had been afforded the procedural opportunity promised in the PFL.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review. The decision confirms that immigration officers must respect response periods expressly granted through procedural fairness letters. Even where there may be significant concerns about an applicant’s eligibility, a decision cannot be finalized before the applicant has been given the full opportunity to respond, particularly where the record contains information that could potentially affect the outcome.

Case Citation:
Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212 (CanLII)