The
Federal Court considered a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) refusal that had
already been remitted once for redetermination. After IRCC acknowledged that
the officer failed to consider updated documents submitted by the applicant
during the second assessment, the parties agreed that the decision should be
set aside. The remaining dispute concerned whether the Court should require the
new officer to specifically identify any deficiencies in the application before
making a new decision. The Court granted judicial review but declined to impose
such an obligation on the visa officer.
Key
Principle
The
Federal Court held that visa officers are under no legal obligation to
identify deficiencies in an application, request missing evidence, or provide
applicants with advance notice of concerns relating to whether statutory
requirements have been met. The onus remains on applicants to submit complete
evidence establishing their eligibility.
Background
The
applicant sought a Temporary Resident Visa to visit Canada for a childhood
friend’s family celebration and to visit his uncle. After a previous judicial
review, the matter had been returned to IRCC for redetermination. During the
reconsideration process, the applicant submitted updated supporting documents.
IRCC later acknowledged that the officer failed to consider these updated
materials, and agreed that the refusal should be set aside. The applicant,
however, asked the Court to require the new officer to specifically identify
any perceived deficiencies in the application before making another decision.
Court
Findings
- Failure to Consider Updated Evidence Required Redetermination
The Respondent acknowledged that the officer
overlooked the applicant’s updated documentation submitted after the earlier
remittal. The Court accepted that the refusal should therefore be set aside and
reconsidered by a different officer.
- Visa Officers Are Not Required to Cure Deficient Applications
The Court rejected the applicant’s request that the
new officer be required to identify specific deficiencies or request additional
evidence before redetermining the application. Justice Lafrenière reaffirmed
that applicants bear the responsibility for providing complete and persuasive
evidence in support of their applications. Visa officers are not required to
assist applicants in building their case or provide advance notice of potential
deficiencies.
- No Obligation to Provide a “Running Score”
Relying on Solopova v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2016 FC 690, the Court confirmed that visa officers have no
legal duty to clarify incomplete applications, request additional information,
or provide applicants with a “running score” throughout the
assessment process. Imposing such a requirement would effectively oblige
officers to warn applicants before issuing a negative decision, an obligation
consistently rejected by the Federal Court.
- No Special Reasons for Costs
Although the applicant argued that repeated errors
and delays justified an award of costs, the Court found no evidence that IRCC
had acted unfairly, oppressively, improperly, or in bad faith. The officer’s
failure to consider the updated documentation was characterized as an
administrative error rather than conduct warranting costs under Rule 22.
The Federal Court granted the application for
judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, directed the applicant to
submit any further updated documentation within 15 days, and ordered a
different officer to redetermine the application within 60 days. No costs were
awarded.
Case Citation:
Shivanshu v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2026 FC 879 (CanLII)
