Dhamu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 562: Failure to Provide Requested Documentation Justified PGWP Refusal, Federal Court Holds

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) application submitted by an Indian citizen who completed a Canadian post-graduate program. The visa officer refused the application after finding that the applicant failed to provide a credential assessment report requested through a procedural fairness letter. The officer determined that the applicant had not complied with the duty of candour under section 16(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) by failing to provide documents reasonably required for the assessment of the application. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the officer’s request was relevant and that the applicant failed to adequately respond to the concerns raised.

Key Principle

Applicants for immigration benefits have an obligation to provide truthful information and all relevant documents reasonably required by an immigration officer. Where an officer raises concerns through a procedural fairness letter, the applicant must provide a complete response and explain any inability to provide the requested information. A refusal based on non-compliance with section 16(1) of the IRPA may be reasonable where the applicant fails to address the officer’s concerns or provide an explanation for failing to submit requested documentation.

Background

The applicant, an Indian citizen, entered Canada in January 2023 as an international student and completed a two-year Computer Systems Technician-Networking diploma at St. Clair College, a designated learning institution. After completing her studies, the applicant applied for a Post-Graduate Work Permit in September 2024.

During the processing of the application, an IRCC officer issued a procedural fairness letter requesting a credential assessment report from World Education Services (WES) regarding the applicant’s previous foreign studies at OM Institute of Vocational Education and Training in India. The officer had concerns regarding the applicant’s foreign education history and requested the document within 30 days.

The applicant responded by submitting documents from the OM Institute, including transcripts, but did not provide the requested WES assessment report or explain why the document could not be obtained. The officer subsequently refused the PGWP application, finding that the applicant had failed to comply with the request and had not met her duty of candour under section 16(1) of the IRPA.

Court Findings

· Officer’s Request Was Relevant and Reasonable

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the WES assessment was unnecessary because foreign education was not a statutory requirement for PGWP eligibility. The Court held that section 16(1) of the IRPA does not require that requested documents be material to the final eligibility requirement, but rather that they be relevant to the officer’s examination of the application. The officer’s concerns regarding the applicant’s previous education and entry into Canada made the request reasonable.

· Applicant Failed to Address the Procedural Fairness Concerns

The Court found that the applicant failed to adequately respond to the procedural fairness letter. Although she argued before the Court that WES did not assess vocational diplomas of the type she held, she did not provide this explanation or supporting evidence to the officer during the application process. The officer could only assess the information available on the record.

· Duty of Candour Requires Full Cooperation

The Court emphasized that applicants must put their best case forward and provide complete responses to immigration officers’ concerns. The applicant’s failure to explain why the requested document was unavailable or why the request was unreasonable allowed the officer to reasonably conclude that she had not complied with her obligations under section 16(1) of the IRPA.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the officer’s refusal of the PGWP application was reasonable. The Court concluded that there were no serious shortcomings in the decision and that it was not the Court’s role to consider new explanations or evidence that had not been provided to the officer. No question was certified for appeal.

Case Citation: Dhamu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 562 (CanLII)