Ihenyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1143 : TR to PR Application Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Lacked Valid Temporary Status at Approval

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review of a refusal under the Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway: International Graduates category. The Officer found that the Applicant did not meet the mandatory requirement to have valid temporary resident status, or eligibility to restore status, when his permanent residence application was approved. The Court held that the policy clearly required valid status both when the application was received and when it was approved.

Key Principle

Where a temporary public policy establishes a mandatory eligibility requirement, an applicant must satisfy that requirement at the specified stage of processing. Under criterion “f” of the TR to PR Pathway policy, applicants were required to reside in Canada with valid temporary resident status, or be eligible to restore their status, both when the PR application was received and when it was approved. An officer has no discretion to waive a mandatory requirement.

Background

The Applicant applied for permanent residence in August 2021 under the TR to PR Pathway: International Graduates category. At the time of application, he held a valid work permit. However, his work permit expired on November 20, 2023, and he did not obtain another form of valid temporary resident status. When the application was reviewed on December 4, 2024, the Officer refused it because the Applicant no longer had valid temporary resident status.

The Applicant argued that the policy only required valid status when the application was submitted. He relied on criterion “g”, which referred to evidence required at the time of application and appeared to identify physical presence at approval as a later requirement. He also argued that IRCC’s internal processing documents created a legitimate expectation that status would not be reassessed at approval.

Court Findings

• Policy Required Status at Approval: The Court found criterion “f” clear and unambiguous. It expressly required valid temporary resident status at both the time the PR application was received and the time it was approved. The IRCC Guide reinforced this interpretation by expressly stating that applicants needed valid status when applying and when IRCC made its final decision.

• Criterion “g” Did Not Alter Criterion “f”: The Court rejected the argument that criterion “g” created a contradiction. Criterion “g” was an additional mandatory requirement and did not qualify, modify, or remove the separate requirement under criterion “f”.

• No Discretion to Waive the Requirement: The Officer was not required to request updated documents regarding the Applicant’s status. Since the Applicant had no valid temporary status in December 2024, there were no updated documents that could have changed the result. The mandatory nature of criterion “f” also meant the Officer had no discretion to waive it.

• Supplemental Policy Did Not Apply: The Applicant had not applied under the Supplemental Policy. In any event, that policy addressed applicants refused because they were outside Canada when their applications were decided. The Applicant’s refusal was instead based on his lack of valid temporary resident status. The Court therefore rejected the proposed broader interpretation.

• No Legitimate Expectation: The Applicant failed to identify any clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation from IRCC that valid temporary status would not be required at approval. Internal IRCC documents could not constitute representations made to the Applicant. The policy and public Guide conveyed the opposite requirement.

Outcome

The Court found the Officer’s refusal reasonable and found no breach of procedural fairness. The application for judicial review was dismissed and no question was certified.

Key Takeaway: Ihenyen confirms that applicants under the TR to PR Pathway were required to maintain valid temporary resident status, or eligibility to restore status, through the date of PR approval. Holding valid status when the application was submitted did not satisfy the separate requirement to have valid status when the application was approved.

Case Citation:

Ihenyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1143 (CanLII)