Goel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 275 : Express Entry Refusal Set Aside Where IRCC Failed to Address Evidence That Submitted Marriage Document Was a Valid Marriage Certificate

The Federal Court granted judicial review of an IRCC decision refusing to reopen an Express Entry permanent residence application that had been rejected as incomplete. IRCC concluded that the Applicant had submitted a marriage licence rather than the required marriage certificate. On reconsideration, the Applicant’s representative provided detailed submissions explaining that the document was an expedited marriage certificate valid under Ontario law. IRCC simply repeated its original conclusion without addressing those submissions. The Court found the reconsideration decision unreasonable.

Key Principle

An application rejected as incomplete is not immune from judicial review where the applicant disputes the underlying finding of incompleteness. Where an applicant’s reconsideration request directly challenges the factual basis for the refusal and provides substantive evidence or submissions, IRCC must meaningfully grapple with the central argument. A decision-maker need not address every argument, but failure to engage with a key issue may render the decision unreasonable under Vavilov.

Background

The Applicant applied for permanent residence through Express Entry. Her application was rejected as incomplete because IRCC determined that she had provided a marriage licence instead of a marriage certificate.

The Applicant sought reconsideration and disputed that characterization. Her representative explained that the document was an emergency or expedited marriage certificate, bearing a certificate number and the Registrar’s signature. The representative further explained that, because the certificate had been obtained urgently, the document was issued in a particular format and could be verified with the Registrar. The Applicant requested that IRCC reopen the application.

IRCC refused to reopen the application, essentially reiterating that the document provided was a marriage licence.

Court Findings

• The matter was justiciable

The Court distinguished cases where applicants acknowledged that their applications were incomplete and attempted to submit corrected applications subject to subsequently changed requirements. Here, the Applicant disputed the very finding that her application was incomplete. The Court held that an IRCC decision rejecting an application as incomplete cannot be immune from judicial review merely because it concerns completeness.

• IRCC failed to engage with the central argument

The reconsideration request specifically challenged IRCC’s characterization of the document and provided an explanation as to why it should be treated as a marriage certificate. IRCC did not address those submissions and simply repeated that the document was a marriage licence. The Court found this insufficient under Vavilov.

• Key arguments must be meaningfully addressed

The Court relied on Vavilov’s principle that although decision-makers need not respond to every argument, failure to meaningfully grapple with a key issue or central argument may demonstrate that the decision-maker was not alert and sensitive to the matter before it. That was the problem in this case.

• Court would not decide whether the document was actually a certificate

The parties made competing submissions concerning Ontario’s Marriage Act and ServiceOntario requirements. However, the Court emphasized that its role on judicial review was not to determine for itself whether the submitted document was legally a marriage certificate. The issue was whether IRCC had reasonably addressed the Applicant’s central submission.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application, set aside IRCC’s reconsideration decision, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Goel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 275 (CanLII)