Adiele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1256 : Spousal Open Work Permit Refusal Quashed After Officer Ignored Evidence That the Principal Applicant Attended a Designated Learning Institution

The Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review of the refusal of a spousal open work permit. The Court held that the officer’s finding that the applicant failed to establish that his spouse was a full-time student at a Designated Learning Institution (DLI) was unreasonable because it was made without regard to the evidence. The Court also rejected the Minister’s argument that the judicial review had become moot following a subsequent reconsideration decision.

Key Principle

A subsequent reconsideration decision does not automatically render an existing judicial review application moot. Where a live controversy remains between the parties, the Court may exercise its discretion to hear the matter. In assessing spousal open work permit applications, officers must reasonably consider the evidence before concluding that the applicant has failed to establish that the sponsoring spouse is a full-time student.

Background

The principal applicant applied for an open work permit to accompany his wife, who was studying at the University of Saskatchewan. The application was refused because the officer concluded that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the applicant’s spouse was a full-time student at a Designated Learning Institution. The applicant requested reconsideration of the refusal. Several months later, IRCC acknowledged that sufficient evidence existed to establish the spouse’s full-time student status but maintained the refusal on a different ground, namely insufficient financial resources. The Minister argued that this later reconsideration rendered the judicial review of the original refusal moot.

Court Findings

• Reconsideration Does Not Automatically Render Judicial Review Moot

The Court applied the principles governing mootness and held that the application should not be dismissed merely because IRCC later reconsidered the file. Although the reconsideration decision relied on different reasons, the underlying controversy concerning the applicant’s open work permit application remained unresolved. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion to hear the application on its merits.

• Officers Must Consider the Evidence Before Them

The Court agreed that the original refusal was unreasonable because the officer concluded that insufficient evidence existed to establish the spouse’s full-time student status without properly considering the evidence submitted. Since the decision was made without regard to the evidentiary record, it failed to satisfy the requirements of reasonableness.

• Procedural Fairness Challenge Was Not Properly Before the Court

The applicant argued that procedural fairness was breached because, during reconsideration, the refusal was maintained on the new ground of insufficient financial resources without providing an opportunity to respond. The Court declined to consider that issue, holding that it was not appropriately raised within the judicial review of the original February 2, 2024 refusal decision.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the original refusal, and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. The Court held that the original decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider the evidence concerning the spouse’s status as a full-time student and declined to dismiss the application as moot despite the subsequent reconsideration decision.

Case Citation:

Adiele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1256 (CanLII)