The Federal Court reviewed two
decisions concerning Omoladun Janet Akinokun’s Express Entry PR application
under the Provincial Nominee Program. IRCC refused the application after she
failed to provide her Provincial Nomination Certificate despite two requests.
IRCC later refused to reopen the application. The Court upheld both decisions,
finding that the document request was authorized and reasonable and that the
reconsideration process was procedurally fair.
Key Principle
IRCC may require an applicant to
provide documents directly, even where the information may also be available
from another government authority. An applicant bears the responsibility to
comply with document requests and establish eligibility. A request is not
unreasonable merely because IRCC may know the certificate number or may
potentially obtain the document elsewhere. Reconsideration is discretionary,
and procedural fairness requires an opportunity to present the applicant’s
position, not a favorable outcome.
Background
The applicant had been approved
under a provincial nomination program and submitted an Express Entry PR
application.
IRCC first requested her
Provincial Nomination Certificate with a deadline of December 21, 2022. She
responded after the deadline without providing it. IRCC issued a second request
with a deadline of January 10, 2023.
The application was refused on
January 12, 2023. The applicant requested reconsideration but did not initially
provide the certificate. She ultimately submitted it more than two months after
the refusal.
She argued that IRCC already had
access to the certificate, that the province was responsible for sending it,
and that medical and technical circumstances prevented timely submission.
Court Findings
• IRCC Had Authority to
Request the Certificate
IRCC could require the applicant
to provide information and documents directly to establish eligibility and
compliance.
• Evidence Showed the
Certificate Had Been Sent
The record contained an email
showing that the province had sent the certificate to the applicant months
before IRCC requested it.
• Certificate Number Was Not
the Certificate
A reference to the nomination
number in IRCC’s system did not establish that the officer possessed the actual
certificate.
• Document Was Not Difficult
to Produce
The certificate was directly
connected to provincial nominee eligibility and had already been provided
electronically to the applicant.
• Technical Explanation Did
Not Account for the Delay
An alleged website issue in
January did not explain why the certificate was not submitted until March.
• Reconsideration Process Was
Fair
The applicant had an opportunity
to explain her circumstances and request reopening. She was not denied the
right to be heard but was simply unsuccessful.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed both
applications for judicial review and upheld the refusal of the PR application
and the refusal to reopen it. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Akinokun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 980 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
