Judicial Review Granted
The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Temporary Resident Permit
(TRP) and Work Permit application based on the applicant’s failure to provide
biometrics. While the officer reasonably relied on IRCC records indicating that
a Biometric Instruction Letter (BIL) had been sent, the Court found that the
process was procedurally unfair because uncontested evidence established that
neither the applicant nor his legal representative actually received the
letter.
Key Principle
The Court confirmed that although IRCC may rely on a presumption that
correspondence sent to the correct address is received, that presumption can be
rebutted by credible evidence. Where an applicant establishes that a Biometric
Instruction Letter was never received, procedural fairness requires that the
applicant be given an opportunity to provide biometrics before an application
is refused.
Background
Tito Roman Reyes Garcia, a citizen of Mexico, applied for a TRP and a
work permit. As part of the application process, IRCC generated a Biometric
Instruction Letter on November 5, 2024, directing him to provide biometric
information. According to GCMS records, the letter was emailed to the
applicant’s legal representative at the correct email address.
The applicant’s counsel acknowledged receiving earlier correspondence
from IRCC but swore that the BIL was never received. Because the applicant was
unaware of the biometric request, no biometrics were submitted, and the
applications were refused.
Court Findings
Justice Conroy accepted that the officer’s decision was reasonable based
on the information available at the time. The GCMS notes and Department of
Justice affidavit demonstrated that the BIL had been sent to the correct email
address. Therefore, the officer was entitled to conclude that the applicant had
failed to comply with the biometric requirement.
However, the Court found that the process became procedurally unfair once
uncontested evidence established that the BIL was never actually received. The
Court noted that Canadian immigration law recognizes a rebuttable presumption
that correspondence sent to the correct address is received. In this case, that
presumption was successfully rebutted by credible affidavit evidence from the
applicant’s representative.
Importantly, the Respondent did not challenge that evidence through
cross-examination and provided no evidence confirming that the email had
actually been delivered or opened. The Court observed that proof of
transmission is not necessarily proof of receipt. Since the applicant never had
a meaningful opportunity to comply with the biometric request, fairness
required that he be given that opportunity before his applications were
refused.
Justice Conroy also endorsed earlier observations that IRCC could easily
use delivery confirmations or read receipts for important communications such
as Biometric Instruction Letters, thereby reducing disputes regarding receipt.
Outcome
The
Federal Court granted the judicial review, set aside the officer’s decision,
and remitted the applications to a different officer. The applicant was given
an opportunity to supplement his application with the requested biometric
information. No costs were awarded.
Case Citation: Reyes Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 642 (CanLII)
