Ayaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 598 : Express Entry Refusal Upheld Where Applicant’s Police Certificate Was Outdated Based on Information Declared in the Application

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an Express Entry Provincial Nominee Class application that was rejected as incomplete because the accompanying spouse’s United Kingdom police certificate predated her declared last residence in the UK. The Applicant argued that the spouse had only transited through the UK after the relevant period and that an immigration consultant had incorrectly entered the address history. The Court held that the Officer was entitled to rely on the information declared in the application and that the Applicant failed to establish consultant incompetence or procedural unfairness.

Key Principle

An immigration officer is generally entitled to rely on the information provided in an application, including information entered by an authorized representative. Where the application itself states that an accompanying family member resided in a country until a date after the issuance of the submitted police certificate, the officer may reasonably determine that an updated certificate is required. The applicant cannot ordinarily ask the Court to correct the application retrospectively by relying on new evidence that was not before the decision-maker.

Background

The Applicant applied for permanent residence through Express Entry under the Provincial Nominee Class in February 2025, with his spouse and three children as accompanying family members. His spouse had previously lived in the United Kingdom but had moved to Pakistan before joining him in Canada.

The application contained conflicting information. The spouse’s address history indicated that she had lived in the UK until January 19, 2025, while the personal activities section indicated that she had been a homemaker in Pakistan from September 2024 to January 2025. The spouse’s UK police certificate was dated December 19, 2024.

On March 3, 2025, IRCC refused the application as incomplete because the UK police certificate had been issued before the declared last residence in the UK. The Applicant argued that his spouse had merely transited through the UK for several days and that his immigration consultant had incorrectly transferred information into the application.

Court Findings

• New evidence generally inadmissible

The Court emphasized that judicial review is normally confined to the evidentiary record that was before the decision-maker. The Applicant attempted to introduce additional documents to establish that his spouse had not actually resided in the UK until January 2025. Those documents were generally inadmissible because they had not been before the Officer, subject to the limited exception concerning the alleged negligence of the consultant.

• Consultant was not incompetent

The Court applied the established three-part framework for ineffective assistance or incompetent representation: incompetence, a miscarriage of justice, and notice and an opportunity for the representative to respond. Although the consultant had been given notice and an opportunity to respond, the Applicant failed to establish incompetence.

The consultant had relied on information supplied by the Applicant, prepared the application, and reviewed the completed application with the Applicant in person before submission. The Court found that these steps were consistent with reasonable professional assistance. The high threshold for establishing incompetent representation was therefore not met.

• Officer was entitled to rely on the application

The Officer could not be faulted for relying on the address-history information supplied by the Applicant and family members. Given that the address history indicated residence in the UK until January 2025, the Officer was entitled to conclude that the December 2024 police certificate was not sufficiently current. The Officer was not required to reconcile conflicting portions of the application before determining that the application was incomplete.

• No procedural fairness breach

The Court found no procedural fairness violation arising from the consultant’s conduct. The Applicant had not demonstrated that the consultant’s actions caused the refusal through incompetence or that the Officer otherwise acted unfairly.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application without costs. The Court found that the decision was justified, transparent and intelligible and that no reviewable error or procedural fairness breach had been established. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Ayaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 598 (CanLII)